The Liberals and Conservatives have both fired attack ads at each other, rhetoric on all sides is almost a flashpoint, and just about every major news outlet in Canada has been running pieces on the imminent outcome: a federal election is around the corner.

Harper’s budget, expected to be released in March, is being touted as a pivotal moment for the current government. If badly received by the opposition, it could be the spark that gets Canada to the polls. Tensions between the Conservatives and Liberals have grown over the government’s economic, military, and environmental policies.

Annie Donolo, VP Operations for Liberal McGill, said the Liberals’ support of the budget will hinge on what priority it gives to corporate tax cuts and how it proposes to cut unnecessary spending.

“It’s just not the right time to offer tax cuts,” she said. “There’s a good climate for business and a tax cut are only going to hurt taxpayers.”

From across the floor, Conservatives have said that tax cuts are necessary to stimulate the economy and encourage Canadian business. In an email to the Tribune, Conservative McGill’s Director of Events, Spencer Burger, agreed that the proposed cuts are necessary for economic development.

“The Conservative government has made [it] clear that these tax cuts are proven job creators,” he said. “We live in a highly competitive age and a more competitive tax rate will bring more investment and jobs to Canadians.”

Another major Liberal criticism of the current government is aimed at its untendered F-35 fighter jet contract. Donolo said that the Liberals appreciate the need for the best technology to keep Canadians safe, but wanted a competitive bid process on the contract.

However, Burger pointed out that the contract went through an “exhaustive evaluation process at the Department of Defence,” and was supported by the previous Liberal government.

As the election nears, the Liberals seem to be positioning themselves for a platform anchored by social issues. For example, Donolo said the party will seek to help “sandwich parents”—families who have to support not only their children but their own parents as well.

“There’s not enough in the social safety net to help them,” she said. She added that a Liberal government would focus on pension reform for Canada’s aging population, and would even increase aid for post-secondary education.

Conservatives, meanwhile, will likely trumpet their economic policy’s success during the recession.

Interestingly, it seems that the NDP might support the new budget, but only if it contains meaningful action for helping households with energy costs or if it strengthens the Canada Pension Plan (CPP).

“Our point of view has always been that if we can get something out of [the budget], then we’re doing our job,” said Matthew Dubé, co-president of NDP McGill. “You have loyalty to your party, but you also represent constituents.”

Specifically, the NDP would like to get rid of the federal tax on heating bills and strengthen the CPP by increasing the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS), which they claim would bring many Canadian seniors back above the poverty line.

The parties have also done plenty of finger-pointing over environmental policy and the use of the Athabasca oil sands. The Conservatives have based their policy on that of the United States.

“Canada is also restricted by its deep connections with the U.S. economy, and the Conservatives have rightly demonstrated that Canada should follow U.S. moves on this issue,” Burger said. Conservatives have Canada slated for a 17 per cent reduction in carbon emissions from 2005 through 2020.

Opposition parties claim this amount isn’t enough. Donolo argues that Harper “embarrassed us at Copenhagen and Cancun [and] especially at Kyoto.”

Donolo also noted that the recently appointed Minister of the Environment Peter Kent’s main responsibility has been to “improve the reputation of the oil sands” through a PR campaign. “How does that contribute to a better environment?” she asked.

According to Dubé, the NDP also calls for “more federal regulation of the tar sands to keep up with our environmental and health standards.”

Though the disputes between the parties are heating up, polls show few changes in the Canadian voting public, with the Liberals still trailing by about nine per cent.  The majority of Canadians, however, appear to be to be unconcerned with federal politics altogether. According to the Globe and Mail, Liberal pollster Michael Marzolini found that only 15 per cent of the Canadian electorate is presently following federal politics. 

Canadian Senator Serge Joyal joined Richard Schultz, chair of McGill’s political science department, in a panel discussion on Thursday about the Canadian government’s plans for Senate reform.  

The Harper government has introduced two bills on the issue: one bill proposes an eight-year maximum term for senators, and the other bill calls for the election of senators by provincial votes.  

Joyal contended that these bills would amount to an unconstitutional change that would transfer power from the federal government to the provinces.  

“It would be as if we are importing the 10 provincial premiers into the Senate,” he said.

Schultz agreed that any change must consider the complex distribution of power and the Constitution, but he still argued that reforms must occur.  

“The contemporary Senate, for all the good it has done, is fundamentally flawed in that it lacks legitimacy,” Schultz said.

Joyal emphasized the need to objectively understand the Senate as an institution before calling for reform. He stressed that changing part of the structure of the Canadian Constitution cannot occur without first considering how it will impact the whole body of the Constitution.

“If you change the volume of air in one room, it will have an impact on the air conditioning system,” he said.

Joyal explained that if senators were to be elected, they would have to be elected in different districts than the MPs, which would not only increase government costs, but also create competition between fellow party members.

According to Joyal, it is essential to have a body like the Senate to take a second look at issues.

“The Senate is less partisan … since we don’t need to be elected we are not hostage to the pressure from different groups, whereas MPs are subject to that pressure,” said Joyal.

Joyal also said that an elected Senate would create problems for Canada’s minority government. He argued that in a minority government it is always difficult to pass a bill through three stages. With provincially elected senators, the same issues would arise in the Senate, essentially duplicating the House of Commons.  

“It would create a system of slowing down the machine,” he said.   

Schultz maintained that because the Senate is increasingly becoming a mirror image to the House of Commons, Senate reform is crucial.

“There is something fundamentally wrong when a single individual, Liberal or Conservative, has the ability to appoint powers to an institution that has the same powers as the [elected] House of Commons,” he said.   

Schultz contended that an elected Senate would be ideal. However, he noted that elections are not a way to fashion a legitimate democracy.  

“We simply argue for elections as if that’s the ideal form of democracy,” he said. “I don’t think we should elect judges.”  

Schultz agreed with Joyal that an elected Senate would result in power concentrated in provincial regions, actually denying proportional representation.  

For example, Quebec is divided into 24 senatorial districts, with some in densely populated regions and others in the rural areas. One of the senatorial districts overlaps Quebec and Newfoundland, where there would have to be a combined election.

“So we would have great discrepancies in representation that are grossly unfair,” Schultz said, explaining that such a situation would lead to incredible arguments if the power of the Senate and its relationship with the House of Commons were not changed. He argued for an institutional modification, but not a constitutional change.  

“Mr. Harper’s proposals constitute a radical change in our Constitution,” he said.  “I think the Senate should be reformed in order to enhance the legitimacy of senators. Election is one way, but it would require Constitutional reform that I don’t think we should do.”

Schultz added that although there should be a change in tenure, eight years is an inadequate time period because the turnover would be too high, and it would thus reinforce the power of the executive.  

“Eight years is extremely short,” he said. “You would never have to face accountability. We don’t want another house of short-term amateurs.”

U3 political science student Andrew Bonnell said that Joyal and Schultz’s discussion shifted his opinion on Senate reform.  

“I was very pro-election for Senators,” he said. “I still think that there needs to be reform, but since listening to this panel, I don’t necessarily think electing a Senate on a provincial basis is the best route.”

The Arts Undergraduate Society no longer has to pay the $2,500 fine that it was originally charged with due to the placement of an Arts Undergraduate Theatre Society poster on a lamppost.

Due to financial constraints faced by the AUS this year, President Dave Marshall was ready to personally represent the AUS in court against the City of Montreal, but after frequent communications, the prosecutor’s office decided to withdraw the charges.

“Traditionally [this] is done because their office doesn’t believe there is enough evidence supporting their case,” Marshall said. “The reasons weren’t disclosed to us, but regardless, the situation is favourable for our students because the AUS doesn’t have to pay the fine or the court fees associated with it.”

The fact that the AUTS is a student group that works with the AUS created a lot of confusion regarding who was responsible for the poster.

The fine was charged to the AUS because when the AUTS poster was found and the police looked into it, the only corporation that appeared to be officially registered was the AUS.

“There was still no proof at any point that anybody from the  AUS could have put the poster up,” Marshall said. “They didn’t catch anybody in the act.”

According to Marshall, the City now plans to review the law in order to avoid similar issues in the future.

“The law as it stands right now opens up a lot of confusion regarding these type of charges that are not legitimate and hopefully they will revise the law in the near future,” Marshall said.

The situation represents a liability issue regarding the use of the AUS name, which is similar to the restrictions McGill’s administration placed on the use of the McGill name earlier this year.

“This, I think, is a perfect example of a liability issue associated with using the AUS name,” Marshall said.

By this logic, the AUS has found ways to reduce the liability risk, as well as fight for its students if anything goes wrong with the use of the AUS name.

“I don’t expect this to be a major step for McGill, but I think it should come as a pretty powerful indication that student groups are in a very similar position when it comes to the usage of their corporate names, and yet we have taken a position that we will support our students,” Marshall said. “I’d like to see the same thing from McGill.”

After being shut down by the Students’ Society on January 25, Midnight Kitchen, the Shatner Building’s popular vegan food cooperative, reopened for lunch on Friday with a renewed permit.

The cooperative’s sudden closure was the result of a “communication fiasco” between Midnight Kitchen and SSMU, said Emily Zheng, an administrative co-coordinator for the cooperative.

“It was just a huge misunderstanding,” she said.

The confusion, which shut down the cooperative for two days last week, began in December, when, according to SSMU Vice-President (Clubs and Services) Anushay Khan, she sent Midnight Kitchen an email inquiring about their progress on the renewal of their operation permit. The cooperative had operated under a permit since last spring, when Midnight Kitchen sent two of its members, Salka Thali and Matt Lee, to be trained in food management and safety, in accordance with new provincial regulations.

But Midnight Kitchen never received the email, Zheng said. Instead, the cooperative first learned their permit would need to be renewed on January 10, when Khan sent them another email. In response, Midnight Kitchen held a meeting about renewing their certification, Zheng said, but they didn’t think there was any rush to do so.

Midnight Kitchen’s permit expired on January 21, however, Khan said. Four days later, SSMU General Manager Pauline Gervais and Khan approached Midnight Kitchen at lunchtime.

“We were in the process of cooking when Pauline and Anushay came up,” Zheng said, “and Pauline told us that our permit had expired, and unless we had a renewed permit, we couldn’t keep serving.”

SSMU allowed Midnight Kitchen to serve the food they had already prepared for the day, but required the collective to shut down immediately afterward. According to Khan, SSMU could have faced a $2,000 fine if an inspector had happened to drop by the Shatner Building after the permit had expired.

“We got lucky that no one came by and checked,” she said.

After Midnight Kitchen’s closure, miscommunication between SSMU and the cooperative continued. In an interview on Wednesday, Zheng said Midnight Kitchen could remain closed for the next two months.

But Midnight Kitchen was shuttered for days, rather than months. According to Zheng, SSMU simply needed to prove that 10 per cent of its kitchen staff had been properly trained. Because Thali and Lee had taken a course last year and were still cooking for the cooperative, the recertification process was.

“As soon as the paperwork was in, we were able to reopen,” Zheng said.

Khan said it pained her to shut down the cooperative, even for a couple days.

“It was two very sad days,” she said. “But the law is the law.”

Roughly 40 students attended a Town Hall meeting last Wednesday held by the Students’ Society to discuss a proposed referendum question about reforming the General Assembly.

The proposed motion would replace the GA with an Annual General Meeting and an online voting period for referendum questions. SSMU Council is set to vote February 3 on whether or not to put the question on the Spring referendum ballot.

SSMU President Zach Newburgh, the author of the question, gave notice of the motion at the SSMU Council meeting on January 20. After a number of students contacted him with concerns, he announced that he would hold a Town Hall to solicit further student feedback.

During the two-hour meeting, councillors and students offered various suggestions for improving both the GA itself and the proposed referendum question.

Max Zidel, clubs and services representative, responded to a comment about weak turnout at GAs by saying that a lot of the good things at McGill are done, or at least started, by smaller groups of students and that SSMU should foster this work rather than discourage it.

“I don’t think it should be a problem of who attends and how many,” Zidel said. “If it’s a problem of, ‘We don’t want everyone to vote on behalf of everyone because of that,’ we can reform the legislative aspect of the GA, make it less bureaucratic, etc. But the forum of discussion part could be only 10 people in the room and it would still be more valuable than no one.”

Erin Hale, U3 Philosophy, was concerned that changing to the proposed AGM format would remove any real force and meaning from the GA.

“What separates [an AGM] from a culture club?” she said. “Let’s get together and talk about something. People want to get together to make a decision. You’re cutting the balls of the GA by having these AGMs.”

Others expressed concern about the wording of part 28.3 of the proposed referendum question, which appeared to strictly limit the scope of debate at AGMs. But according to Robert’s Rules, this section would only limit debate for the purpose of voting. Newburgh said he plans to amend this section at the next Council meeting to make the wording more clear.

Myriam Zaidi, SSMU vice-president external, expressed mixed feelings about the event.

“I find it unfortunate that the turnout wasn’t great, that the vast majority of people were either councillors or members of the media,” said Zaidi. “[But as a positive], a lot of arguments that came up that not even executives or councillors thought of, not even those who are for the GA, like the education aspect.”

At the Town Hall, several students suggested that the GA’s attendance problems could be partially blamed on the average student’s insufficient knowledge of the inner workings of the GA. Some suggested that more education on the capabilities and operations of the GA ought to be implemented so that students could feel more comfortable with the process and be more likely to attend the GA and engage in debate.

Newburgh said many of the comments made by members of the audience had already been considered during the writing of referendum question, but that “there were a few new points that were made that are interesting to consider, some of which will be addressed to the form of amendments to the referendum question.”

Any amendments suggested will be presented, discussed, and voted upon at Thursday’s Council meeting.

Clubs and Services representative Maggie Knight noted that although she arrived to the event late, from what she saw, the Town Hall “was successful in being a place where people could share their ideas. Depending on what happens with these results, we might see some frustration or some excitement.”

Looking forward to the next Council meeting, several SSMU councillors and executives appear to have strong thoughts one way or another on the future of the GA and the GA-reform referendum question.

“Personally, ideally it would fail at Council. And if it doesn’t happen then I’d plan on being involved in a No campaign,” said Management representative Eli Freedman. “I was under the impression that we were reforming [the GA] and I had ideas for reforming it and I didn’t even think getting rid of it was an option. Now with the referendum question, that’s the only option.”

Knight said some of the concerns that have been raised could be traced to the complicated wording of the referendum question and that re-wording the question for clarity could alleviate some of the concerns.

“If we could re-write [the question] in a way that’s actually representative of what you could actually do with it, then maybe that would be okay,” Knight said. “But, it doesn’t clearly outline: we’ll have a debate and then we’ll be able to vote on stuff for the next three days. That’s nowhere in there.”

Several councillors have said they plan to bring critical questions and amendments with them to the February 3 Council meeting. However, Newburgh said he will stand strong in his position to defend the main force of the question.

“Any amendment that provides the opportunity for a small segment of the population to vote and excludes all others is unacceptable and against the spirit of the referendum question,” Newburgh said.

Knight, however, said the proposed reforms have led some students to question Newburgh’s leadership.

“We have a large number of councillors who don’t trust the motivations of our president,” Knight said. “Do I have a huge amount of trust for certain people and their motivations right now? No. Am I attempting to work collaboratively? Yes.”

Zaidi responded to concerns that the SSMU executive was divided on the issue.

“We are six people … elected on an individual basis,” she said. “It happens that some issues will divide us and this is one of the issues that does divide us.”

Newburgh explained that the question went through the Council steering committee without any dissent, and that he feels there would have been the “same outcry no matter what kind of process ensued.”

“Ultimately bold steps needed to be taken in order to force people into consultation on this issue,” Newburgh added. “This is an issue about ensuring the democratic character of our society and if we’re going to continue to uphold an undemocratic institution for the sake of students’ apathy, we are failing at our job as responsible representatives and leaders of the society.”