Latest News

a, Science & Technology

McGill research sheds light on hidden genetic potential

by Farah Hanani Sam on

More in a:

Groundbreaking research at McGill is shedding light on the importance of environmental stress on evolution. Researchers led by Professor Ehab Abouheif, a Canada Research Chair in Evolutionary Developmental Biology, recently created “supersoldiers” of the ant genus Pheidole morissi in the lab. The “super” ants sport huge, oblong, heads and ultra-sharp mandibles. They measure about three times the size of a normal soldier ant. Abouheif’s study, published in Science, is thought to illustrate effects of what is known as dormant genetic potential—dormant qualities that are locked in place for millions of years, but may be invoked into existence by natural selection and allow species to realize hidden potential. 

As a child, Abouheif aspired to be a heart surgeon, but his interest in answering philosophical questions—like why we have five fingers or why leaves are green and shaped the way they are—led him to the field of evolutionary biology.  The Tribune sat down with Prof. Abouheif last week to discuss his research and its possible implications.  

Congratulations on being published in Science. How do you choose what to send to the big-name journals?

 I only send my best ones. To publish in the top journals, like Nature and Science, it’s very competitive. They only accept about five-seven per cent of the writings they receive. Then it’s like a lottery. You can be convinced that you’ve found something groundbreaking, but the editors and anonymous reviewers have to be excited about your work as well.

How do you manage to create these “supersoldier” ants in the lab?

On the last stage of metamorphosis, Pheidole larva release a certain amount of a hormone, called juvenile hormone. If the hormone level passes a certain threshold, the ant develops into a soldier. We thought that in the lab, if we introduce larvae with more hormones beyond the threshold just before the crucial switch, we might be able to produce supersoldiers. And we were right.  

Without hormone intervention in the lab, why do rare “supersoldiers” occur in the natural environment?

What we observe is that Pheidole colonies use supersoldiers to defend their nests when other colonies attack. We also observed another ant species that live in the same exact environment with the Pheidole but don’t produce supersoldiers. So why is that? It turns out that these other species use a different strategy to defend themselves. They use what is called “nest evacuation,” where  they evacuate nests that they occupy. This renders the need for supersoldiers obsolete. They have the potential to produce supersoldiers, but natural selection has given them an alternative strategy to survive. However, this doesn’t negate the fact that the potential is still there and is only brought to fruition under specific circumstances that can be created in the lab.

What do you think is the groundbreaking aspect of your published results?

We’ve heard about whales with hind limbs, snakes with arms, birds with teeth, and humans with an extra nipple. These are not weird features—they’re modern domesticated species that still display characteristics of their ancestors. Whales at one time lived on land (hence the limbs). Before, people thought that these anomalies popping out were just ‘slips’ in the evolutionary process, nothing more. What we are showing, for the first time, is that these anomalies are actually species’ hidden potentials that are locked in place for millions of years. They’re just sitting there all this while, dormant.  Given the right environmental triggers, they can be unleashed.

You are opening a lot of doors. What does the future hold for this research?

Now that we’ve said, look, there’s more to these anomalies—at least in Pheidole—the question is whether these implications extend beyond these ants. People can look for the same evidence in other species too, and that’s a different story.

Another reason why we can make this discovery in ants is because it was easily observable. The traits were distinctive—look at those humungous heads. Imagine if it was a missing limb, then it’s harder to detect. Another reason is the social aspect of ants. Like humans who take care of their less fortunate, ants will take care of each other no matter what. If these anomalies pop up in species that are individualistic, they will be wiped out completely due to competition. These anomalies won’t persist and we might have not been able to see them today.

Any advice for those who want to go in to the field of science? Some words of wisdom?

 The most important thing is, first of all, embrace chance because we are all presented with opportunities that are completely random and we must seize them with passion. You just follow your heart. Don’t do anything just for the sake of doing it, do it because you are passionate about it and when the opportunity arises, grab it and then follow your heart and your senses. It’s that passion that will keep you floating through the downturns that occur. 

Did you encounter failures over the course of the study?

All the time. What you see is the success, but this paper took eight years. The amount of failures varies—either due to some basic chemical that was missing, or having ants die on us because they weren’t fed properly. Once, we brought a colony of supersoldiers into the lab for observation. We were very excited, just very eager to see how they behave. Then another nasty species of ants in the incubators got out, formed a trail, went in to the colonies and massacred them all, before we could come and actually see anything. It was frustrating. We had to go back to Long Island, N.Y., find another batch, scan the Pheidole colony for supersoldiers, and ship them in all over again. What you see is the end product, the result of failing with sparkles of success.

This interview has been condensed and edited. 

—Compiled by

Farah Hanani Sam

a, Opinion

A Different Approach to Religion

by Chloe Turner-Bloom on

More in a:

McGill Tribune

Around 80 people were shot to death during a political gathering at a summer camp in Norway in 2011. Many have claimed this crime was fueled by religions and that it is exemplary of its faults. There have been mass suicides in the United States led by religious cults, and religion is generally seen as inconsistent with many liberal values. It’s repeatedly blamed for its role in terror, death, inequality and discrimination.

 But these ideas are essentially so fictitious that they should be forgotten. Such a harsh picture of religion, besides focusing solely on people’s skewed negative perceptions, fails to separate religion and the extenuating circumstances that could lead someone to be prejudiced, abusive, or even a murderer.

It is too easy to blame religion as a whole for all the awful things that happen. We form a picture of it using these extreme acts since that is what we are exposed to the most. Terrorist groups and polygamous colonies that find support through religious texts clearly do not fit the religion prototype. People who are deluded and want to abuse, hurt, and destroy will find a way to do it. Religion should not be blamed for igniting these awful ideas. The exploitation of religion for manipulative purposes and doing evil is the result of the person and not religion itself. Evil precedes religion and, sadly, cruelty exists everywhere and has for all of time.

Atheism is an assertive view, and it includes an incompatibility of religion with all facets of life. For some, religion has many faults and is the root of numerous misguided actions. It brainwashes people and leaves them mindlessly tumbling around through space with no sense of reality. However, this fails to take into consideration all religion has accomplished throughout history. If we can get beyond the seeming foolishness of religion, it becomes apparent that it is a beautiful thing. Throughout history religion has driven society and provided people with a purpose in life. If someone wants to believe that a loved one who passed away is in heaven and they will see them again, then so be it. As long as religion remains in its own sphere and does not obstruct the practises of science, or the freedom of expression and thought we so dearly value, then its existence is justified. 

Besides, when atheists stand in opposition to religion, they cannot clearly see that their hate is just as negative as the exclusivity and disapproval they feel religion thrusts at them. Equality does not necessitate that everyone have the same ideals and values, but rather that each person’s opinions do not impose themselves in a harmful fashion on another’s.

I am unquestionably an atheist, and I believe that it is incredibly important to establish a certain respect for religion. I do not believe that religion should be involved in education or governmental affairs, but rather it is something that can help the mind grow. Even if we completely rid ourselves of religion, conflict will still exist due to the natural instincts of human beings. Moreover, without religion, many people would live significantly less fulfilled lives. I am not implying that a fulfilled life necessitates religious practice; instead, I wish to convey  that religion and atheism can co-exist if there is a mutual respect and they are each seen as valuable in themselves. Even if it is impossible for the whole world to happily agree to be different, I would hope that all of us at McGill could strive for some sense of compatibility and equality.  

a, Opinion

Student Democracy: The agency of the few

by Abraham Moussako on

More in a:

The SSMU General Assembly last week was the latest installment of an institution at McGill showcasing both the theoretical promise of direct democracy and the reality of its own illegitimacy. The theoretical promise comes from the reasonable idea that the student body of a university should have a say in how the university is run. This runs head on into the reality of direct democracy at McGill, which is that it is highly unrepresentative of the student body at large. While I had taken a passing interest in watching how our student government works, seeing that the assembly was debating a painting of Karl Marx—satirically or not—was what motivated me to actually attend.

What I first found striking about the Assembly was its similarity to a Model UN conference. Same placards, same stilted rules of debate, and the same generally impatient, almost restless buzz among some of the less committed attendees. The resolution under debate at the time was an amazingly dry one regarding the “Selection of the Financial Auditor.” There was not a particularly spirited debate on the idea, and it passed. The following resolution, regarding the formation of a student run café, was just as bland and inoffensive. 

The resolutions then began to hint at the radical agenda at hand. The resolution on frosh reform decried the current iteration as “heteronormative,” but was vague in terms of actual actions. In response to a question I posed, it was noted that the motion would simply act as a form of public approval over talks to reform frosh the SSMU was already having internally. There was a bit of a dust-up as one attendee fought to have included a redundant amendment that would codify that the event would be in accordance with the SSMU’s equity policy. As with some of the more passionate attendees to the Assembly, she spoke as if these words were all that would keep frosh from descending to a nest of homophobic misogyny. On that subject, someone else suggested adding rather dramatically-termed “anti-oppression” rape culture workshops to the resolution. 

Midway through the debate on frosh reform, the assembly mercifully lost quorum and became a “consultative body,” presumably meaning that the printed minutes of the meeting were now worth slightly less than a roll of sanitary paper. The debate on “negative corporate influence on campus” seemed to be tailor-made for the members of the “protest class” in attendance. A spirited back and forth ensued, as some argued that McGill should free itself from the yoke of purportedly corrupting corporate influence, while others pointed out the financial difficulty of reducing corporate partnerships. But these are the same voices that call for frozen tuition fees and higher wages for striking faculty. The response, that the university should “reevaluate its administrative priorities,” was the sort of line that drew passionate applause from quarters of the audience—and completely absolved the speaker from engaging with the argument.

Later, an attendee ludicrously suggested the assembly was in violation of anti-sexism policies because only men had spoken. The suggestion was that the two women who at the time were in line for the microphone should be moved to the front; presumably the fact that they had stood up later than the others was a sign of an “oppressive power structure.”

Debate drifted on to the consideration of a “student strike ‘solidarity’ fund.” The proposed fund, to be paid out of general SSMU funds, was yet another symbol of the apparatus—and in this case, the money—of the majority of students appropriated to support the agenda of the vocal few. The last serious resolution of the night was a move to condemn the federal crime bill, C-10. My own skepticism on the bill aside, the student union of McGill running a public advocacy campaign against it would be just about as effective as anything the government of Mauritius has to say on the U.S. elections. The Harper government does not exactly court—or care about—the approval of left-wing college students.

After a debate on a satirical resolution on chess sets for Gerts, the motion on a Karl Marx painting was put forth. Some of the more rational students in attendance half-jokingly attempted to amend the resolution to require an equally-sized painting of Adam Smith. The amendment was declared “not topical,” and the resolution on the whole proceeded to a vote. The painting was eventually rejected by the assembly. A small and symbolic victory in an assembly that had been reduced to a small and symbolic body hours ago, but a victory for reason nonetheless.  

What to do to fix the structure of student government is a topic for another column. What I can say here is that any structural reform of campus politics would do well to be accompanied by an attitude adjustment.

a, Opinion

Are the USA and Canada tangoing to different music in the 21st century?

by Johanu Botha on

More in a:

Canada-U.S. relations have enjoyed an eclectic array of descriptions since the International Boundary that separates the two countries was set up in 1783. Pierre Trudeau famously said that living next to the U.S. was like sleeping with an elephant: “No matter how friendly or temperate the beast, one is affected by every twitch and grunt.” John F. Kennedy just as famously described the relationship when he said that  “Geography has made us neighbours, history has made us friends, economics has made us partners, necessity has made us allies” (if only he knew that Prime Minister John Diefenbaker would decry him as a “son of a bitch” one year later). As we dig deeper into the 21st century,  I wonder what best describes the dynamics north and south of the 45th parallel, or better yet, what best describes what they should be? 

Some have likened the current relationship to the the continuing saga between the Boston Red Sox and the New York Yankees. The former has an inferiority complex, jubilant at any minor victory scored, while the latter sometimes forgets who the Sox are (no need to point out who’s who in this analogy). This contains a grain of truth. When’s the last time you heard an American exclaim, “Did you know that the premier of New Brunswick was actually born in the States?” Never. Despite it being true, you have never heard an American say that.

On the other hand, you often hear a Canuck reminding any and all that Jim Carrey, Seth Rogen, the guy who invented basketball, and so many more, are Canadian. As Canadian writer Will Ferguson put it: if you are remotely, possibly, and/or hypothetically connected to Canada in some way, we will claim you. 

But that is nothing new. Canada has been lauding the Canadian-ness of achievements by its citizens—especially its citizens that live in the States—in an unapologetically enthusiastic way ever since it started reimagining the paltry war of 1812 as The Great And Glorious Canadian (Not British!) Victory That Put Those Arrogant Yankees In Their Place. 

What is new at the turn of the century, however, is the contrast between the political philosophies the two countries have elected in their respective leaders. Not since Reagan and Trudeau have the offices of President and Prime Minister viewed each other from such different spots on the spectrum. The early 2000s saw Liberal Chretien glare across the border at conservative Bush, and relations were not rosy. They were made even more not-rosy when Canada refused to declare war against Iraq. The political profiles of the offices have since traded sides with Democrat Obama bristling his country’s right wing, and Conservative Harper upsetting (in Canada we prefer not to bristle) his country’s left wing. Despite appearing by all accounts to have struck up a warm friendship, the differing pressure from their respective constituencies was clear when Mr. Obama shut down an oil pipeline that Mr. Harper had vigorously fought for. 

But do these political differences really mean anything new for the Canada-U.S. relationship? Has anything really changed in the new century to justify searching for new ways to describe the countries’ relations, or what they should be? The same variables Kennedy listed as binding the two states together are still at play. If anything, given a world connected with ever more complexity, they are more even more so. 

a, Opinion

What’s a Grammy worth?

by Nick Petrillo on

More in a:

Proclaiming that the Grammy Awards aren’t the definitive measure of musical success isn’t exactly going out on a limb, but why is it that so many music fanatics approach this ceremony with either indifference or downright distain? The winners of the film industry’s Academy Awards might not always coincide with winners in public opinion, yet we continue to hold that ceremony in high esteem in the face of their occasional missteps. 

But the Grammy Awards are different. Within the yearly discussion of its categories and nominees  the question of its legitimacy always comes with it. There is the looming suspicion that the award represents little more than the music industry’s self-righteous celebration of its most profitable artists, as shown by a trend that loads major award categories—i.e. best album, best song, best new artist—with Top 40 pop stars year after year. While it’s true that the Grammys will have expanded their award categories in the past to recognize the best in alternative, country, electronic, and other genres, the artists within these new categories are usually mentioned with minimal pomp and circumstance compared to their pop-star peers.

What could salvage the respectability of the Grammy Awards is the Internet, where non-Top 40 bands such as Arcade Fire have dominated Internet music communities and frequently hold strong positions at the top of the iTunes album chart just as often as today’s more publicized entertainment sensations. And indeed, it seems like the music industry is listening to the web – Arcade Fire’s The Suburbs was awarded Album of the Year in 2011, beating out mainstream superstars Katy Perry, Lady Gaga, and Eminem. Seeing Win Butler’s wide-eyed bewilderment during his acceptance speech last year, I wonder if he was humbled by his band’s latest achievement or simply astounded that the Academy resisted the urge to award just another pop sensation.  

It certainly wouldn’t make him the only artist to view the awards with skepticism. As Justin Vernon of Bon Iver said last December, “We should not be gathering in a big room and looking at each other and pretending that this is important.” Even Trent Reznor, who won two Grammys during his tenure with Nine Inch Nails, admitted that the process feels “rigged and cheap—like a popularity contest that the insiders club has decided.”

Fans and artists agree that the award holds little value in assessing the merit of the recording industry’s talent. And though the selection process has expanded its reach to new genres, it continues to entrench itself too heavily in pop music. Popular music is by no means an inherently talentless art form, but focusing attention on it because of its wide appeal remains the Grammy Awards’  biggest defect. 

I think Morrissey, lead singer for The Smiths, summed up perfectly how Top 40 has plagued music awards: “It’s very easy to be controversial in pop music because nobody ever is … pop music seems now to be exclusively for children. If an artist is no good, why is it necessary to have that artist repeatedly rammed in our face?” It’s going to require honesty from fans, musicians, and the industry itself to bring legitimacy to the Grammy Awards, otherwise the line that separates critical acclaim from dresses made out of meat will continue to be blurred. 

a, Opinion

The SSMU General Assembly needs a serious facelift

by on
  • Author

More in a:

McGill Tribune

Last week’s SSMU General Assembly (GA) once again failed to reach quorum for the majority of its motions. As the SSMU executives are only compelled to act on those that did—sadly consisting of just the distinctly tepid duo of motions concerning the selection of the Financial Auditor, and one in support of the student café—the GA was effectively relegated to a consultative body, endowed with little power to effect any actual change.

This was not an unexpected result. The Tribune has been consistently calling for the GA to undergo substantial reforms. Without it, the GAs will continue to be unproductive. Last week’s Winter meeting is just another reason why the GA in its current form is a total embarrassment to everyone involved, and a source of exasperation to those who are not. 

Firstly, the GA as an institution suffers chronically from a fatal paradox: it is supposedly the democratic representation of the student body in SSMU’s affairs, and yet only a fraction of students are present, and even fewer are able to get their voice heard, let alone listened to. The result is an unrepresentative representative body. This is partly due to the limits of space, and partly due to the limited student desire to attend. A maximum of 500 people can fit in the hall, a number that is rarely even reached and is only a small fraction of 22,000 SSMU members. Considering the quorum for most proposals lies at only 100, there is the possiblity that an even smaller fraction of 0.6 per cent of the student body can shape SSMU legislation on behalf of the rest. This is plainly not fair for those whose opinions are not represented because they are unable to attend, possibly for reasons of health, part-time jobs, researching, and homework. It is understandable that students have other uses for their evening apart from debating whether Karl Marx deserves a portrait in the student lounge.

The GA lends itself to a tyranny of a vocal and radical minority, one that can often be at loggerheads with the general opinion on campus. We question the legitimacy of those who dictate policy simply by virtue of showing up. No one elected them to vote on behalf of their absent fellow students. Therefore GA votes are not representative. 

The absurdity of the GA is further compounded by the disingenuous and cynical attitude it encourages: the best way to exercise your right to vote at the GA is to sit through the meeting, fool your opponents into thinking quorum has been reached, and then obstinately leave just as the vote is being counted for motions you don’t agree with, to deprive the GA of its power.

Last week’s GA also conformed to a recurring theme of recent GAs: the motions themselves were problematic. Some focussed on external issues that lay beyond SSMU’s purview (like the Federal government’s crime bill, C-10), while others concentrating on internal issues were either about divisive-yet-vague complaints, or concerned with the tediously practical issues which were coming into effect regardless of the GA’s endorsement.

The question is, what can be done to improve it? We offer three paths for how to resolve the GA: the path of expansion, the path of contraction, or the path of abolition.

The path of expansion would entail moving the GA online. As James Gilman, one of our in-house columnists, pointed out last week, a system of online voting would allow more people to be able to vote, and would create a more transparent GA. This expansion of the electorate can only be done well if coupled with better publicity. The GAs could be live-streamed online, accompanied by a live-stream of the minutes so that people around the university can not only get a grasp of what is being said, but so that they can also comment on the minutes online. That way, people who are unable to be there in person can still have their say in some form. 

The path of contraction would involve the GA ceding any pretension to being a representative body, allowing the GA to focus on being a centre for dialogue, active debate, and a consultative assembly for SSMU. If people still feel strongly about any particular issue that should be enacted by SSMU, they should launch a referendum for this purpose. If it genuinely is a good idea, a resounding referendum mandate is a much more credible litmus test for student opinion.

Finally, there always remains the path of abolition. We  respect the value of having a vibrant forum for debates over campus issues, but when most of these descend into a crudely partisan means for extreme groups of both sides of the political spectrum to push their own agenda  against the interest of the majority of the student body, then it is may be time to call a halt to proceedings and look for other ways to create a more legitimate, egalitarian, and representative form of debate.

News

UN Special Rapporteur discusses rights of migrants

by Laura Douglas on

More in News:

François Crépeau, UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants, gave a talk on Feb. 1, hosted by the McGill Centre for Human Rights and Legal Pluralism. The talk, entitled “Inception of a Global Migration Management Regime,” focused on some of the problems facing international migrants, and on what is being done to change the systems that create these issues. 

Crépeau is the Hans & Tamar Oppenheimer professor in public international law at McGill’s faculty of law. His role at the UN involves investigating migrants’ rights and situations in various countries, drafting reports to the UN Human Rights Council, and recommending actions to resolve migrants’ rights issues. 

“I’m less interested in permanent residents, in migrants who come with money or skills or who will become citizens very quickly. I’m more interested in vulnerable, irregular migrants,” Crépeau said.  

Global migrants, particularly temporary migrant workers, are frequently denied basic human rights, but most governments are unwilling to discuss the issue on an international level.  

“The hidden discourse is that migrants in irregular situations do not have rights,” Crépeau said. 

According to Crépeau, there is less public awareness of the challenges faced by migrants than there is of many other current human rights issues. This is in part a result of politicians’ reluctance to discuss the issue.  

“On the subject of immigration, politicians can say whatever they want, without consequence, because vulnerable, temporary, and irregular immigrants cannot vote … they are politically insignificant,” Crépeau said. “Because [migrants] are afraid of being deported, they do not complain either.”

Another factor contributing to the lack of awareness about these issues is their portrayal in the media.  

“The media seeks short phrases, and on the subject of immigration that generally means [something like] ‘there are too many immigrants.’ That is a short phrase,” Crépeau said. “The role of the Special Rapporteur is to change the discourse, to change the vocabulary; to introduce complexity into the discussion of migrants, and to get away from a simplistic discourse.”

Crépeau noted that for more effective dialogue, people need to change the way they think about migration.  

“I think the conceptual change that we have to do, like we did for women, for aboriginals, for detainees, and for gays and lesbians, is to go from an “us and them” discourse to an “I and we” discourse. That is what the human rights movement does,” Crépeau said.  

A small group attended Crépeau’s talk, including students, fellow professors, and a representative from the Philippine Embassy in Ottawa, all of whom stayed past the official conclusion of the speech to ask further questions, and to continue the discussion. 

Students expressed their appreciation for Crépeau’s extensive knowledge on the subject of migrants’ rights. 

 “I wanted to see the talk to learn a little bit more about the notion of a global migration management regime,” Bethany Hastie, a doctoral student in the faculty of law with the Centre for Human Rights and Legal Pluralism, said. 

“There are many events [like this one] within the law faculty that have the potential to interest people who are not in law,” Ludovic Langlois-Thérien, U4 law, said. “I think there should be a way for people who are not within this faculty to know about these events.”

Throughout his talk, Crépeau emphasized the humanity of migrants around the world.  

“We are all migrants,” he said. “The human condition involves mobility, and it is not migration that is the exception, it is sedentariness. That is an important thing we seem to have forgotten.”

News

SSMU GA loses quorum after passing two motions

by Anand Bery on

More in News:

Sam Reynolds / McGill Tribune

SSMU’s Winter General Assembly struggled to maintain quorum on Feb. 1, barely reaching the 100 undergraduates needed to render votes binding. Two motions were voted on as a binding assembly, while the remaining were voted on as a consultative body.

A motion from the floor submitted by former SSMU President Zach Newburgh and U2 political science student Brendan Steven sought to amend the agenda to include a vote to reinstate SSMU’s Judicial Board. Despite a second vote and discussion from the floor, the motion was defeated and was not added to the agenda. At the time of the GA, SSMU had suspended the Judicial Board’s activities, which included hearing Newburgh and Steven’s case regarding the fall referenda. The Judicial Board was reinstated at a SSMU council meeting the following day.

After a report from each SSMU executive on developments in their portfolio, the assembly proceeded to vote on the selection of SSMU’s financial auditor, which passed with  quorum.

The next motion looked to gain student support behind the establishment of a student-run café in the Shatner Building, an endeavour which has been a cornerstone of Shyam Patel’s tenure as VP Finance and Operations of SSMU.

When asked about the release of a business plan for the project, Patel promised that one would be released by the end of his term.

Molly Swain, a U1 women’s studies student, spoke in favour of the student-run café.

“I think the time is not only nigh, but also extremely right for this to happen,” Swain said. “We’re seeing a general rollback in terms of student-run spaces on campus without being consulted about it, so I think this is really a great initiative and this is the time we should be putting this together.”

The motion passed overwhelmingly.

A motion moved by Clubs and Services representative Adam Winer aimed to have SSMU work to limit how extensively corporations are involved in McGill’s governance, teaching, and research, particularly with regards to companies known to have committed ethical and environmental injustices.

“This motion does not attempt to lay out an overall systematic theory for what constitutes corporate influence and what does not,” Winer said in response to a question on how the motion would evaluate inappropriate pressure from industry on McGill research. “I think that we can see certain very egregious cases of inappropriate corporate influence over the research process at McGill and it’s those cases which this motion seeks to cover.”

The assembly was divided on the implications of the motion, with some speakers highlighting the benefits of corporate involvement at McGill in terms of academic funding and job prospects, while others denounced associations between McGill and corporations known to have committed social injustices.

“Given [that] SSMU’s already [opposed to] tuition increases and this resolution would seek to in some way lessen corporate investments, I’m just curious, where is the money going to come from?” Steven asked.

“Most students come to university to get a good education … and ultimately graduate and hopefully get a job. Don’t you find that this resolution will have a major impact on McGill University to have partnerships with outside corporations so that we can allow graduates to actually get jobs, especially in the current economic climate?” Alexandre Meterissian, a U3 political science student, asked.

Although it will not be considered binding due to the loss of quorum, the motion was passed by the assembly.

“We always draw the line where people are being hurt, where the environment is being destroyed, and where there are unfair corporate practices,” a gallery member, who didn’t identify himself before speaking, said. “It doesn’t matter how many jobs they’re going to give, how much money they’re going to give your department. We cannot allow corporations that commit acts like that against the communities that they affect without drawing lines.”

News

Asbestos exporter takes leave from Board of Governors

by Erica Friesen on

More in News:

Asbestos exporter and member of the McGill Board of Governors (BoG) Roshi Chadha announced last Wednesday that she will take a leave of absence from her positions on McGill’s BoG and that of St. Mary’s Hospital Foundation, in a move that follows calls for her resignation by anti-asbestos activists.

Chadha is a director of Seja Trade Ltd., a company that exported asbestos from the Jeffrey Mine in Asbestos, Quebec, until the mine’s activities were suspended last fall. Seja is a branch of Balcorp Ltd., a company owned by Chadha’s husband that is currently involved in negotiations with the Quebec Government to facilitate the reopening of the mine. 

Chadha’s announcement was followed by a letter submitted to McGill on Feb. 2, in which over 70 medical doctors and health researchers call for her resignation, citing the fact that she is “seeking to re-launch the deadly asbestos trade, and denies the clearly established scientific evidence that all asbestos is harmful to health.”

Kathleen Ruff, an anti-asbestos activist who has been petitioning for Chadha’s resignation since December, condemned the way that the Canadian government allows companies like Chadha’s to export asbestos to countries where people are unaware of its universally acknowledged health risks. While Ruff acknowledged that Chadha has made important contributions to protecting people’s health, she said that McGill implicitly endorses asbestos exports by having Chadha as a member of the BoG. 

“If you are appointing someone to a leading position on a board of governors you should ensure that that person supports the mission of that institution,” Ruff said. “You want to acknowledge someone who sets an example to the students and to the world.”

McGill administration has remained quiet on the subject, apart from a public statement issued by Stuart Cobbett, Chair of the BoG.  

“Mrs. Chadha is a distinguished senior volunteer in the McGill community, and has given years of sustained service to the university through a range of important roles and contributions,” Cobbett wrote in the statement. “We respect her wishes, though reluctantly, and look forward to her return.”

McGill’s reluctance to remove Chadha from the BoG is only one of many criticisms recently directed against the university for its connections with the asbestos industry. In a CBC documentary that aired last Thursday, Professor David Egilman of Brock University accused McGill of allowing the asbestos industry to sponsor scientific studies that misrepresented the health effects of asbestos. Egilman said that the government is using these same studies to justify the reopening of the Jeffrey Mine, which is “against the public interest and will lead to asbestos-related deaths,” according to the letter to McGill. 

The authors of the letter also wrote that they were appalled by the discovery that the university has plans to use asbestos-cement storm pipes in the construction of the McGill University Health Centre.  

“It is particularly cynical that McGill is using asbestos-containing materials in a hospital building,” the letter states. “As well as being willing to endanger its own workers and public maintenance workers, McGill will serve as a priceless “poster child” for the asbestos industry, whose marketing in developing countries will likely feature McGill’s new state-of-the-art hospital.”

Fernand Turcotte, professor at Laval University and lead signer of the letter to McGill, said that he is unimpressed with McGill’s response to these issues. 

“I have both a professional obligation and an obligation as a scientist to oppose any kind of avoidable threat to human health, of which asbestos is a good example,” he said. “We need an institution like McGill [to make] a much clearer form of commitment.”

Ruff urged the McGill administration to reconsider its connections with the asbestos industry.  

“I think it will seriously harm McGill’s image,” Ruff said. “McGill knows that asbestos is killing people around the world … These are unnecessary deaths and we know how to stop them. Instead, McGill is blocking efforts to try and stop these deaths … How can an institute that deals with facts and knowledge refuse to examine very serious ethical issues that have been put before it?” 

News

J-Board hears case regarding referendum

by Erica Friesen & Carolina Millán Ronchetti on

More in News:

Madeline Richards
Madeline Richards.

Last night, the SSMU Judicial Board (J-Board) heard a case submitted by former SSMU President Zach Newburgh and co-founder of the Prince Arthur Herald Brendan Steven, against respondent Rebecca Tacoma in her function as Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) of Elections SSMU. (Full disclosure: Newburgh sits on the Tribune Publication Society’s Board of Directors.) The petitioners requested that the results of the fall referendum question regarding QPIRG’s existence be invalidated, citing violations during the campaign period, the CEO’s alleged inability to fulfill her functions and the unconstitutionality of the question posed by QPIRG. 

The case had been originally scheduled for Jan. 31 but was postponed for a week due to concerns that the structure of the J-Board conflicted with provincial laws. In the SSMU’s interpretation of provincial law, the Board of Directors will have to ratify the J-Board’s decision for it to be effective.

The hearing opened with introductory statements by Newburgh and Steven’s advocate, Carmen Barbu, and Tacoma’s advocate, Gabriel Joshee-Arnal.

The case then proceeded with the examination of witnesses by both parties. Barbu first examined former SSMU VP Finance Nicholas Drew, who analyzed a pie chart illustrating QPIRG’s finances. The chart showed that 11.74 per cent of QPIRG’s expenses are formed by opt-outs. When asked by Barbu if such an amount would constitute a threat to an organization’s existence, he said that, from his experience, over 50 per cent constituted a threat.

Barbu also called Eliana Schwartz to the witness stand, who was on CKUT’s mailing list and received an email regarding QPIRG’s referendum question.

“It struck me as inappropriate to use the listserv to [endorse QPIRG],” Schwartz said.

Barbu then cross examined Newburgh, who said that he had sent emails to Tacoma which noted that there had been over 70 campaign infractions. The grievances included the conflict of interest of SSMU Council members who participated in ‘yes’ campaigns, the unsanctioned support of external organizations, and the unsanctioned publication of endorsement letters by both the Tribune and the McGill Daily.

“I expected that they would be considered, that each of the matters would be dealt with appropriately,” Newburgh said, referring to lengthy emails he sent to Tacoma that were not answered.

During cross examination, Joshee-Arnal questioned why, if he had complaints during the referendum period, Newburgh had not appealed to the J-Board until after the referendum results were released.

“At no point did I ever consider [going to J-Board] until after the results,” Newburgh said. “There was no doubt in my mind [that the infractions would be addressed.]”  

After Newburgh’s testimony, Joshee-Arnal called the respondent’s first witness, Tacoma. She testified that Steven had initially contacted her about forming a ‘no’ committee for the fall referendum questions. Tacoma also explained the reason for not replying to Newburgh’s emails.     

“[This was a] very contentious referendum, I was receiving a lot of emails [and] couldn’t reply to all of them,” she said. “It would have taken a lot of my time to adequately respond to [the emails]. I didn’t feel it was part of my duties to provide a written response, though I was open to other forms of discussion.”

Tacoma added that Newburgh did not visit her office hours to address his concerns. Barbu then cross examined Tacoma, questioning her fulfiment of her duties. Tacoma testified to interpreting the by-laws differently from the previous CEO, by not monitoring Facebook pictures and statuses, claiming she could not realistically monitor such campaigning.   

Tacoma further explained that there was much illegal ‘no’ campaigning, including three Facebook groups. Barbu asked why there were no comments on the violations by the ‘yes’ committee on the ballot, and Tacoma stated that those sanctions were communicated via email. She noted that the illegal ‘no’ campaigning was on the ballot because even though she closed down some Facebook groups, others could reappear. 

Barbu then questioned Tacoma about her working relationship with SSMU president Maggie Knight, and Tacoma testified that as CEO of Elections SSMU, she works under Knight’s portfolio but makes decisions independently. In their factum, Newburgh and Steven questioned the fact that Tacoma consulted with Knight at some points during the fall referendum period because, according to SSMU  elections by-law article 2.2, Tacoma should have consulted VP University Affairs.

Joshee-Arnal concluded Tacoma’s examination by confirming that there is no mention of Facebook in the by-laws and that Tacoma is not bound by the decision of past CEOs. Joshee-Arnal then called Knight to the stand for examination, asking her if Tacoma was bound by any advice Knight gave. 

“It is very clear in the by-laws that the CEO has ultimate authority,” Knight said. “I was very clear that, ultimately, we hired her so that the SSMU president doesn’t run elections.”

Knight further testified that she had recommended that Tacoma was physically present across campus to enforce election by-laws. 

“It wasn’t necessary for her to provide written reasoning for every email she received because of her other duties,” Knight said.  

When asked if she was contacted during the fall referendum regarding the CEO’s role, Knight said that she was addressed by the QPIRG ‘yes’ committee. 

“I received some complaints from the ‘yes’ committee who were concerned that the respondent was exhibiting bias [against] them.”

Following the cross-examination of the witnesses, the justices heard additional witnesses who had been called by three interveners, third parties who have entered the suit for their own interests. 

The advocate for the QPIRG intervener, Faiz Lalani, emphasized the need to ensure the referendum’s adherence to the constitution. 

“This appeal is about student democracy and how we conceive of it,” Lalani said. We want to ensure that students have the right to participate … and when they meet the constitutional safeguards that are in the constitution [such as the number of signatories], their democratic will ought to be respected.”

Lalani called on SSMU VP Finance Shyam Patel to confirm that the loss of opt-out-able fees would have severe negative implications for a student body such as QPIRG. He also questioned Anna Malla, a member of QPIRG, who said that many alternative aven
ues had been explored to maintain the organization without switching to non-opt-outable student fees. 

“We didn’t come to this question easily,” Malla said. “It took us years to get to this understanding that we actually cannot continue to exist under the current circumstances.”

Adam Wheeler, a co-chair of the QPIRG Yes Committee, said that although they consulted Tacoma frequently to ensure that they were in compliance with the bylaws, QPIRG never considered her to be biased in their favour. 

“At various times throughout the campaign we were actually concerned that she could be biased against us, because … the sanctions that we received … were quite significant … especially in comparison with previous years’ [referenda],” Wheeler said. 

The advocate for the CKUT intervener, Vladi Ivanov, emphasized the fact that organizations like CKUT are hurt by “blanket opt outs”  that “do not reflect any kind of democratic will regarding the actual value of services by CKUT.” Because students simply choose to opt out of all possible services online, they do not take the time to learn about the work done by the organization. 

The financial harm that this kind of a system means to an organization, Ivanov said, shows that the issue of opt-out fees is instrumentally linked to the issue of the organization’s survival. If the two issues in the question were inseparable, she claimed, the referendum was constitutional, unlike Newburgh and Stevens’ allegations. 

The hearing was concluded by  Barbu asking the board to invalidate the referendum. Joshee-Arnal concluded by asking the board to consider why Newburgh and Steven did not raise the issue over the referendum question until after it took place. He also restated the concern of why the petitioners only sought to target QPIRG and not CKUT when both referendum questions were the same.

The J-Board will release its ruling of the case within 30 days.  

1 … 1,154 1,155 1,156 1,157 1,158 … 1,367

Read the latest issue

Read the latest issue