Latest News

a, Out on the Town, Student Life

MTL à Table: Montreal’s restaurant week

by Amber Hord on

More in a:

McGill foodies will be ravished to hear that MTL à TABLE, Montreal’s annual Restaurant Week, is back in full force. This year’s festival runs from Oct. 29 to Nov. 8, and offers meal and drink deals for discounted prices at over 140 restaurants around Montreal.  The fixed price table d’hôte menus offered at participating restaurants include three courses, and vary from $21 to $41, depending on the restaurant. Some restaurants are also offering late-night bites, or brunch options on the weekends, both for $21. In addition to sit-down meals, there are events like a chocolate and wine tasting offered by Chocolate Academy. There are also four walking tours led by VDM Global Foodies, which explore cuisine in different areas of the city, including the Mile End and Old Port. 

The festival offers a chance to try cuisine at an affordable, fixed price.  But with over 140 restaurants to choose from, it can be difficult to narrow down on just a few.   

La Champagnerie

La Champagnerie, the urban tavern in Old Port, is offering a $41 table d’hôte menu featuring seasonal, local produce, with a range of meat and seafood dishes that appeal to a wide variety of tastes. The menu features popcorn shrimp tacos to start, pho with a mix of eight different meats and seafood, and for dessert, a bacon pudding chômeur featuring bourbon syrup, and spicy kumquat. The ambience is unique, with exposed brick walls, leather seating booths, and dim lighting. To add to the trendy atmosphere, there will be a DJ spinning on Thursdays and Saturdays. The restaurant will also be hosting a Halloween party featuring à TABLE deals on Oct. 31.

La Bêtise 

La Bêtise has created a unique fusion of Asian flavors in a tapas style, intermingled with a Quebecois influence. Located in La Petite-Patrie, it may be a bit of a trek for most, but the $31 table d’hôte menu, which includes shredded duck poutine with foie gras sauce and bacon, makes it all worth it.  A crispy and spicy shrimp burger, and a wild mushroom mac ’n’ cheese with truffle oil are also featured on this year’s menu.  Chef Phat Hong has offered wine and cocktail pairings with each course to guide you through the full experience.

Invitation V 

If you are interested in opting for a healthy, more environmentally conscious option, Invitation V is your spot. Located in the Plateau, the warm, urban space offers vegan cuisine inspired by the chefs’ travels and their commitment to healthy eating and animal rights.  This year, their $31 table d’hôte menu includes butternut squash marinated layers in a crispy tempeh crust, and for dessert, a black quinoa pudding with pumpkin cream. The restaurabt blends healthy organic ingredients in internationally inspired dishes that appeal to vegans and omnivores alike.

These are just a few of the great restaurants participating this year, and MTL à TABLE is making it as easy as ever to find a place and a price that suits your taste and your wallet.

To facilitate participants’ dining experiences and accommodate different preferences, MTL à TABLE has introduced a new app in partnership with Yellow Pages called YP Dine. This app enables users to browse participating restaurants by price, location, type of food, time of day, and more. It will list the best spots for an afternoon pick-me-up or a late-night drink with friends. Users can also filter restaurants by dietary preference (vegan, gluten-free etc.), BYOB, or browse by categories like “Smokin’ Smoked Meat,” “Delicious Dumplings,” and “Cheat Worthy Cheesecake,” to name a few. For any mood, the app will help find the perfect place to satisfy your craving. Notably, all of the restaurants are rated and reviewed by local foodies, as well as popular reviewing websites like FourSquare and TripAdvisor. Making reservations for à TABLE restaurants is strongly recommended as a lot of the restaurants fill up ahead of time; and even if they aren’t full, the waiting time can be lengthy at popular spots. Reservations are simple to make as they can be done through the app, and this guarantees participants a pleasant and relaxed dining experience.

a, Hockey, Sports

Shooting the Breeze: Most exciting NHL teams to watch

by Sason Ross, Joe Khammar, Nicole Spadotto on

More in a:

Sticking to one game of hockey at a time can be difficult and can be quite the unbearable choice. Don’t worry, Tribune Sports came up with the three most exciting NHL teams to watch this season.

Arizona Coyotes

Overshadowed by the Edmonton Oilers youth movement and rumours of relocation, the Arizona Coyotes are a team quietly on the rise. The youth crusade has taken years to develop, but it’s finally coming to fruition. Last season was miserable for the Coyotes, but top defenceman, Oliver Ekman-Larsson showed flashes of brilliance. He thrived last season, leading the team with 43 points, and looked like one of the best power play triggermen in the league. Arizona has also welcomed raw, exciting young talents like forward Max Domi and wingers Anthony Duclair and Tobias Rieder into the fold­—they all registered at least five points in their first five games. With the electric speed and dynamic offensive capabilities of both Domi and Duclair, the Coyotes will have a formidable offence that can compete with the top teams in the NHL. Goaltender Mike Smith has returned as a true No. 1 goalie and will be key to the Coyotes’ success. Small sample size nonwithstanding, Smith has hit the ground running this season, posting a 2.26 GAA and a .940 save percentage in four games. Overall, the Coyotes are going to be an energetic team to watch, with young rookies who will add passion and velocity to their game.

– Sason Ross

New York Rangers

The New York Rangers embody exciting play in today’s NHL. With playmakers all over the ice, this is the team to watch. Thus far, two players have stood out above the rest with fantastic plays and contributions. Forward Oscar Lindberg is tied for first in the league with four goals scored. The Swedish rookie should keep the goals flowing and contribute to the Rangers’ dominant offence. On the other side of the ice, fellow Swede Henrik Lundqvist’s artfully unorthodox butterfly style is a joy to watch. So far, Lundqvist is off to an exceptional start. His .933 save rate is the highest of his career through the first five games of a season. The usually slow-starting goalie has been on fire, holding the opposition to three goals or fewer in all but one game this season thus far. If he can maintain his elite production through the rest of the season, the Rangers should be in a much better position come April when New York makes its inevitable Stanley Cup run.

– Joe Khammar

Chicago Blackhawks

The teams worth watching are not the ones that are rumoured to win it all, but rather the teams with chemistry that allows offensive prowess to reign, and where the stage is set for exciting goaltending glove denials. Though the Edmonton Oilers are going to be crazy, and the Montreal Canadiens might have the best goaltender in the league, the most fun team to watch this year is perennial powerhouse Chicago Blackhawks. At the risk of being predictable, the Blackhawks were Stanley Cup Champions last year for a reason. The key to winning hockey games is good defence, but the key to fun hockey is explosive offence and game-saving goaltending. Chicago has the ability to win and look good doing it; watching a winning team is half the fun of NHL hockey. With forwards like Jonathan Toews and Patrick Kane, along with last year’s breakout netminder Scott Darling, there is much to be excited about in this strong team. The defence, marshalled by veterans Duncan Keith and Brent Seabrook, have infallible chemistry with forwards that are strong down the depth chart. The transition game manifests in quick breakouts that lead to even quicker goals courtesy of Kane and Toews, who are among the top puck-handlers in the game.

– Nicole Spadotto

Chris Hadfield Album
a, Arts & Entertainment

Album Review: Space Sessions: Songs from a Tin Can – Chris Hadfield

by Saif Cheval on

More in a:

Colonel Chris Hadfield, 56, is the first musician ever to release an album recorded in space. Yes, that’s right: Space.

To be fair, it wasn’t entirely made in space. Hadfield had to polish up the production upon his return to Earth, which gave the album a clean and atmospheric final sound; however, much of the music was created by Hadfield whilst aboard the International Space Station (ISS). As commander of his mission, Hadfield had little time to himself, and wasn’t always able to record. Over time, the conditions of space affected both his guitar playing and his singing.

The album itself is not as outer-worldly; instead falling into a rather earthy, pop-country sphere of simple melodies and lyrics circling around the motif of departure. “Feet Up,” with its warm riff and laid-back vocals, paints zero gravity as an everyday experience, which seems like an absurd reality (I do a thousand front-flips / Who’ll ever know?). But most tracks are more forgettable, with only a tinge of space-related jargon to keep the album lyrically cohesive. Some songs, such as “Window of My Mind,” are devoid of even that, unless there are also Greyhounds in space. Hadfield himself stated that he had no interest in becoming a musical sensation: he simply wanted to document his time in space through music.

For the first album recorded in the final frontier, Space Sessions doesn’t burst through the stratosphere of musical ingenuity, but it achieves its purpose. This is a journey through the music of Hadfield’s experience—it’s what kept him close to Earth as he circled around it, looking down on home from outer space. For that, it’s good enough.

Standout Track

“Big Smoke”

Best Lyric

“Big smoke; more fragile than you seem / Big smoke; carry precious 

cargo / Show us how to live and how to dream.”

Sounds Like

Neil Young, mid-period Bob Dylan, and Mumford and Sons

SSMU McGill
a, News, SSMU

SSMU Council adopts climate change policy

by Laura Hanrahan on

More in a:

Following lengthy discussions, a global climate change policy and a motion regarding Demilitarize McGill’s proposal for campus alterations were adopted by the Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU) Council this past Thursday.

Adoption of climate change policy

Council, following extensive debate, passed a climate change policy.

Engineering Representative to SSMU, Malcolm McClintock, spoke against adopting the policy, citing the occupational investments that many of McGill’s engineering students have in the oil and gas industries.

“It is part of the mandate of the Engineering Undergraduate Society […] to support the environmentally responsible and ethical development of oil sand industry,” McClintock said. “This motion inherently opposes that [….] When a large portion of our constituents benefit and have invested both educationally and occupationally […] in this industry, it’s not in the best interest to support this.”

Joey Broda, U4 Chemical Engineering student and member of Divest McGill, disagreed with McClintock’s claims.

“I want to make it clear that not all [engineering students] are in support of the ethical development of the oil sands, as frankly, I don’t believe that’s possible,” he said. “It is understood currently that a lot of engineering students do get employed by oil sands development […] however, we understand, as people who are scientifically literate, that climate change is an important issue [….] We need to understand that we can’t support a dying industry.”

The motion for adoption of the policy was put to a vote and passed with 21 in favour, two against, and four abstentions.

Demilitarize McGill motion

Arts and Science Representative  to SSMU Matthew Satterthwaite proposed a motion regarding the SSMU response to “#RememberThis: A Call For Campus Alteration.” The motion was brought forward in response to a statement put out by Demilitarize McGill on the group’s website on the morning of Oct. 15, asking members to the McGill community to physically alter campus in the lead up to Remembrance Day. Satterthwaite explained his desire to avoid SSMU being negatively implicated in any harmful actions taken as a result of this posting. “A lot of students in the general population […] they directly associate [Demilitarize McGill] with SSMU, and if these actions are taken by members of [Demilitarize] McGill, the students at large would directly blame SSMU,” Satterthwaite said.

The statement, as proposed by Satterthwaite, would reaffirm SSMU’s support for the reduction of harmful military technology on campus, while stating that SSMU does not support vandalism or illegal acts.

Science Representative to SSMU Sean Taylor spoke in favour of this motion, explaining that despite the fact the online posting may have been intended to be satire—as argued by Vice-President (VP) External Emily Boytinck—SSMU cannot condone acts of vandalism. “Even if [the post] was satire, it could motivate students, especially [those] that are with the group, to carry out actions like this,” Taylor said. “We’re condemning these actions being done. We’re not saying that what these actions are supposed to illicit are not important.”

VP University Affairs Chloe Rourke urged members of the Council to consider the posting in its entirety, rather than solely the call to action.

“I think we’re focusing on […] the call to action for vandalism on campus, but we’re completely ignoring the entire preface of it, in which it describes the alternative narratives of history […] something that SSMU is very much in support of,” Rourke said. “What they’re saying is actually quite valid [.…] Their arguments are actually not really that relevant to harmful military technology research which we have a policy in support of. They’re actually quite fundamentally equity issues.”

Boytinck asked councillors to consider further research and consultation before releasing a statement. “[The motion is] being so hastily passed through, when I don’t think this is within our role as a student society at all,” Boytinck said. “I would be so embarrassed if this was something we passed through SSMU. I don’t think we gain any student support by shaming another group of students.”

After further discussion, and an amendment to reference SSMU’s support of alternative narratives of history on campus, the motion was passed with 14 in favour, 10 against, and two abstentions.

a, Science & Technology

2015 Nobel Prize winners in physics, chemistry, and medicine

by Clare Lyle on

More in a:

During the week of Oct. 5, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences announced the winners of the 2015 Nobel Prizes. The laureates’ scientific breakthroughs contributed to humanity’s understanding of DNA, explained fundamental properties of the universe, and provided doctors with means of combating diseases like malaria and parasitic diseases.

  • Physics

  • Chemistry

  • Medicine

 

a, McGill, News

SSMU’s new climate change policy causes tension

by Laura Hanrahan on

More in a:

In the wake of an 11-month period of discussions, consultations, and revisions, the Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU) has adopted a new climate change policy. The policy, which passed through Legislative Council on Oct. 15, outlines SSMU’s framework for climate justice. New legislations include avoiding investments in the fossil fuel industry, encouraging the purchase of products from companies that display a strong commitment to sustainability, and lobbying the university for increased research funding and internship opportunities in fields such as renewable energy.

According to SSMU Vice-President (VP) External Emily Boytinck, the initial idea for a climate change policy arose during the previous academic year, and was met with overwhelming support from students.

“SSMU was mandated to bring forward a climate change policy at the Fall 2014 General Assembly through [a] motion regarding action on climate change,” Boytinck said. “This motion, which also specified support for anti-pipeline activism, passed by nearly 80 per cent in an online referendum.”

A preliminary policy was brought forward by the 2014-2015 VP External, Amina Moustaqim-Barrette, during the final council meeting of the year. The policy was tabled until this fall to allow for for further edits and consultation with students.

“At that time, this policy had general support amongst the majority of the student body, but showed opposition from the Faculty of Engineering,” Boytinck said. “The most controversial section, [which] specified opposition to the presence of fossil fuel companies on campus, [was] removed and various clauses that display support for jobs and research opportunities in renewable energies were added.”

President of the Co-op Mining Engineering Undergraduate Society (CMEUS), Michael Andrew, was involved in this revision process. During the Oct. 15 SSMU Council meeting where the final draft of the policy was presented, however, he stated that the concessions SSMU made were not enough to illicit a positive response from all engineering students.

“I would like to express my thanks to Emily for being very open to changing a lot of things that were in [the policy],” he said. “[For example] instead of saying ‘against the oil sands,’ [it was changed to] ‘promoting sustainable energy.’ That’s great, but when [a policy] directly impacts our careers and our line of work, that’s where we need to draw the line. Having this political movement […] is not in the best interest of my constituents, [….] I’ve brought this up to my fellow students and did not receive a single comment of support on this motion.”

Andrew acknowledged issues of sustainability, while emphasizing the fact that oil sands extraction will continue to occur, despite the implementation of such a policy.

“I know there are a few [engineering students] involved with Divest McGill on the sustainability side, and I’m not against the sustainability side of the argument,” he said. “I understand that carbon is a limited resource; what I’m saying is that it’s no question these [resources] will [continue to] be extracted.”

Despite this resistance, Boytinck expressed confidence in the policy’s ability to meet the needs of the McGill community as a whole.

“Overall, I feel confident that the policy has a strong scientific basis, an important focus on climate justice, and widespread appeal for the student body at large,” she said.

Arts Representative to SSMU, Adam Templer, noted that overall reactions from the student body have been positive following the passage of the policy.

“The feedback I have received since the motion passed has so far been very supportive,” he said. “I think that is a testament to how open Council was to collaborate with concerned parties [….] I know that students were particularly happy to see the scope of the policy clearly defined where it was originally very much open to interpretation.”

a, Opinion

Federal politicians must treat young voters with dignity

by Diana Little on

More in a:

Throughout the campaign, the media focused on the voter turnout for one particular demographic: Youth. A Nanos vote study of the 2011 election found that if more than 38 per cent of youth had voted in 2011, the Canadian government would have been completely different. Clearly youth have the power to change election results. In the last few weeks, Canadians between the ages of 18 and 35 experienced a massive push from political leaders, prominent media figures, and McGill professors to vote. But in this campaign, attempts to engage with youth voters were haphazard and superficial, which undermined the value of the youth vote.

Political parties have made their stance on the youth vote very clear: If youth don’t care enough to vote, then they will gear their political platforms towards demographics that will. As a result, youth issues have been remarkably underfunded. For example, Prime Minister Stephen Harper promised to increase training to provide more employment opportunities for youth, but ultimately fell short of his promise by $100 million last year. Youth programs are simply not prioritized at the federal level.

Centering on topics such as student debt and youth unemployment rates, the party leaders came out with formulated plans on how to tackle issues specific to young people. Political parties—particularly the Liberals and NDP—have been scrambling to find something that will appeal to left-leaning youths, who account for a large portion of Canada’s progressive vote. NDP leader Mulcair recently announced his plan to dedicate $200 million to raise youth employment, and Liberal leader Trudeau made a counter offer, pledging almost $1.5 billion over four years to youth employment programs. Part of this may have been a result of a massive anti-Harper strategic vote push in the election, but it also is indicative of the underlying truth that youth are treated as distinct from the rest of the population. While these policies are tailored towards youth, there has been an unwillingness to engage youth in issues of national salience.

 

Young people have a stake in the future of the nation, so it is simply poor politics to underestimate their influence. The young population has the power to determine political outcomes.

Regardless of whether politicians are responding to articulated demands from the youth or seeking to inspire partisan affiliations, these offers are somewhat disingenuous considering the perceived need to secure the youth vote. Born out of competition between progressive parties, voters are forced to question whether these promises possess any real efficacy, or are simply ploys to boost youth support.

For the first time, Elections Canada literally brought the ballot box to the students by setting up offices on various university campuses. While making voting accessible is a necessary action, placing the booth in front of voters isn’t enough to make them want to cast a ballot, nor does it in any way stop the voter from using the excuse “I’m not informed enough,” or, “I’m still not sure which party I identify with and support yet.” That said, while it is young voter’s responsibility to inform themselves on political matters, it is ultimately the political parties’ responsibility to give youths a reason to vote in the first place. In fact, this failure to actually engage and converse with youth voters only fuels the claim that youth are apathetic towards political issues, and that their opinions do not matter.

On one hand, it makes sense for political leaders to focus their energies on other issues, such as immigration laws or balancing the budget, as these appeal to a larger electorate. But politicians should not focus only on those who they believe will win them seats—they should have the best interests of as many sectors of society as possible in mind. National policies should not exclude the interests of the youth. There is therefore a distinction between youth issues and the youth voice. Young people have a stake in the future of the nation, so it is simply poor politics to underestimate their influence. The young population has the power to determine political outcomes, and will comprise the next generation of political actors. The new government must bear this in mind as it begins to deliver on its promises.

 

 

Diana Little is a U1 English literature major, minoring in history.

 

@McGillTribOp | [email protected]

 

 

 
Demi Lovato
a, Arts & Entertainment, Film and TV

Pop Rhetoric: Mental health and the ‘less serious’ celebrity’s conundrum

by Sophie van Bastelaer on

More in a:

As John Oliver noted in a segment on gun violence in Last Week Tonight, the fact that mental health is invoked only in a sombre context and only with a negative connotation is disturbing and unfounded. Mental illness becomes the scapegoat for tragedies which in reality may have had absolutely no part to play in the matter. Oliver mentions that the vast majority of those who cope with mental illness are not violent at all and that the majority of gun violence is committed by those who are not mentally ill.  

The video and accompanying articles attempt to educate people about the immense and ridiculously confusing stigma surrounding mental health, and if the number of shares and positive comments on social media is any indication, Oliver is making waves. While Oliver’s comments are brilliant and sharp, his reputation as a famed and beloved comedian has a huge part to play in affording him the privilege of respect, which is an advantage other—perhaps less recognized or valued—celebrities are not granted. 

Just like Oliver, ex-Disney darling and sugar-pop sensation Demi Lovato has not been shy about speaking about mental health. Diagnosed with bipolar disorder as a teen, Lovato seizes every opportunity she can to encourage her fans not to let the mental health stigma surrounding prevent them from speaking out and seeking help. Recently, in front of Congress, Lovato campaigned for mental health reform—she gave an emotional and personal testimony to the importance of taking action on all levels of society and government. 

Unlike Oliver, Lovato's words fell on deaf and disdaining ears. While positive comments on Oliver’s video include grateful thank you’s and hearty support, comments on Lovato’s assertions are scathing and personal. 

“Who takes advice from uneducated 20-somethings?” one Huffington Post commentor scoffed. Another expressed anger that “just because she is famous, she gets to sit and talk to Congress about something bothering her.” Others rolled their eyes at Lovato, telling her to “shut up already, we get it…you’ve been through a lot. So have most people.”

Rather than supporting Lovato’s use of her broad influence and public platform to speak about her own personal roadblocks (and in doing so, connecting herself with other young girls who may be struggling with mental health issues), people instead chose to mock her and berate her. Angry commenters claimed that Demi was not like them, and the fact that she would act like she understood their real mental health issues was insulting. 

But celebrities are real people, which is something society relishes in overlooking. Lovato is also a brave, young, vocal spokeswoman who is attempting to use her postion in society to address an issue relevant not only to herself but to a huge chunk of the population. The discourse of mental health truly represents a dangerously gaping hole in policy, medicine, and general cognizance. Garnering more press, more money, and more fame does not mean what Lovato has to say is less pertinent, and cynically degrading her only serves to minimize the important issues she’s doing her best to address. 

The press and the public have heralded Jennifer Lawrence recently for her strong essay on equal pay in Hollywood, and one can only imagine that positivity is granted to her because of the universal appreciation and respect she enjoys. Hypocrisy born of superficiality and skewed media is evident in the fact that rather than getting pushback  like Lovato did, fans and society praise Lawrence for using her celebrity to take a stand. 

A critical self-examination is crucial. If society chooses to play favorites in pop culture and decide exactly which public figures are important, and whose messages don’t matter, there is a risk of falling into a vulnerable hegemonic position in which people selectively listen and respond only to those  who are arbitrarily determined to have something meaningful to say. 

That’s a problem, because if society doesn’t want to listen to all of the people who have personal stories and experiences to share, and those who have the power and the will to speak out to millions of people, then who can they listen to? And are they going to make any kind of a difference? 

a, McGill, News

The future of the RVH site

by Joshua Dimakakos on

More in a:

In September, Principal Suzanne Fortier announced the creation of the principal’s task force on the academic vision and mission of the Royal Victoria Hospital (RVH) site. According to the task force’s website, it is an initiative to involve community members at McGill in determining the details of the potential purchase of and usages for the former hospital building and grounds. Since the RVH moved its operations to the  McGill University Health Centre’s (MUHC) Glen site and vacated its former location at Rue University and Avenue des Pins, McGill has been exploring if the site is suitable for purchase, and how to potentially make use of the space.

Vice-Principal (Administration and Finance) Michael di Grappa explained the current study goes beyond determining feasibility.

“There [are] many other reports in there […] to do with the condition of the building, but also to do with […] issues of the specific site,” di Grappa said. “[These include] green space, environmental issues, how one would access the site, [and] how one would move material during the period of construction.”

Student involvement in the project so far has been limited, explained Arts Senator Erin Sobat, undergraduate representative to the principal’s task force.

“What we’d like to see is […] a framework for a way for students to be as involved as possible,” said Sobat.

Discussion of what the site could be used for is one of the task force’s largest concerns.

“[McGill has] done space audits, so they know in terms of square footage which departments, which faculties, [and]which units need or have the most space,” Sobat said. “A large portion of the site is heritage buildings, that can’t just be demolished —nor would we want [them to be ….] The goal is […] to really look ahead at what kind of spaces McGill will need in terms of academics, admissions, research, interdisciplinary research, and how that’s really changing over the next 20 to 50 years.”

Sobat also spoke of the idea of using the buildings for potential student spaces, with other complexes on campus as a model for development.

“A good example […] is that the Engineering [Undergraduate] Student Society has quite a lot of student spaces in the McConnell Building that are used not just for lounge spaces, but for research, for development, for design teams, [things] that that are pretty much tied to the academic role of that faculty,” Sobat said. “And a lot of other faculties could use those spaces.”

As of now, there is little underway in terms of a concrete plan to involve student consultation in the acquisition process, according to Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU) Vice-President (VP) University Affairs, Chloe Rourke.

“My understanding is that the task force will be undertaking expansive consultation efforts over the coming year” Rourke said. “SSMU will certainly be promoting these avenues for consultation and feedback to our members in order to ensure a vision is developed that respects the needs and interests of undergraduate students.”

According to Rourke, acquiring the RVH could provide the university with more space than needed.

“McGill is looking for potential partnerships to share and develop the site,” she said.  “McGill only requires about two-thirds of the site to meet current and future space needs.”

The financing of the initial feasibility study will be split between the Quebec government and McGill, and according to di Grappa, the purchase of the site itself will come at no cost to McGill.

“What we have said to the government all along is that this will be a very expensive project, and we would like to discuss what financing will look like,” said Di Grappa.  “Anything the government would charge us for purchasing the building, that would be much less money than would be involved in the renovation and construction on the site.  So we have asked that the site effectively be turned over to us for a dollar, and that McGill spend whatever it’s prepared to invest in the actual transformation of the property.”

At this time, the RVH property is still not a definite acquisition.

“It’s not a done deal, not a for sure thing,”  Sobat said. “McGill has been very clear that they have requirements that they have to see fulfilled by the government in order to take on the project.”

a, Editorial, Opinion

Editorial: McGill disregards floor fellows’ requests

by McGill Tribune Editorial Board on

More in a:

McGill has flexed its bureaucratic muscles once again in its negotiations with floor fellows: It has violated Quebec labour law by not paying floor fellows a wage, and gone so far as to appeal a court ruling in favour of the floor fellows. In negotiating a collective agreement with floor fellows—who, despite being essential to the functioning of residences are not paid in wages and have low job and housing security—McGill has been characteristically unyielding.

Last week, the Association of McGill University Support Employees (AMUSE) sent an open letter to Principal Suzanne Fortier. Signed by current and former floor fellows, students in residence, and members of AMUSE, it detailed the grievances leading up to the floor fellows’ unionization, and those that have emerged in the 11 months of bargaining for a collective agreement.

Residences are a space to establish community and be supported while transitioning to university life, and McGill is leaps and bounds ahead of other Canadian universities in terms of the services available. The decision to live in residence is a costly investment for both students and floor fellows. McGill residences are among the most expensive across Canada, and providing support to first-year students takes dedication, time, and energy. Unlike other residences in Canada, where floor fellows (referred to as RAs elsewhere) behave as disciplinarians, floor fellows at McGill provide support based on harm reduction and anti-oppression. These principles are essential to the functioning of McGill residences. While the residences have successfully provided services up to now, McGill’s failure to concede the inclusion of their value system shows a lack of respect for what makes the experience of residences unique.

 

 

 

McGill’s failure to concede the inclusion of their value system shows a lack of respect for what makes the experience of residences unique.

Where AMUSE is open about its experience during the bargaining process, McGill is aloof. Floor fellows have explicitly articulated that their collective agreement must entrench their value system, particularly the two pillars of harm reduction and anti-oppression that guide their practice. McGill has so far justified its refusal to include these values in the collective agreement in legal terms. Including normative values in an employment agreement is unconventional, as it is a legal document that defines working conditions. But this justification is indicative of McGill’s failure to consult floor fellows; the result is a process defined more by its power imbalance than constructive bargaining and compromise. By not offering a clear explanation for why the values cannot be included, McGill demonstrates that is has not heard the floor fellows. There is a top-down, unilateral exertion of power that, in failing to engage in a productive and fluid interaction, has begun to disassemble the aspects of residence that make it desirable.

Failing to engage with students is bad business. McGill’s current position in the bargaining process is poorly-defined, poorly-supported—at least publicly—and short-sighted. The unilateral changes to residences, such as encouraging Residence Life Managers (RLM) to take on more duties that were previously the responsibility of floor fellows, such as taking sick or injured students to the hospital, demonstrate a loss of touch with the reality on the ground as well as lack of foresight. For one, floor fellows are essential to maintaining the community and safety of students in residence. Shrinking their duties overburdens RLMs and creates larger cracks through which first-years can fall. Should such changes become the norm, the reason for students to pay exorbitant amounts to live in residence will evaporate. The operation of residences should not be based on financial decisions; all changes to residences must be made in the best interest of the students, which requires McGill to engage in a conversation with them.

The value system of floor fellows is clearly not going to be compromised. McGill must pause, take this letter into consideration, and reevaluate its priorities. If it is seeking to limit its legal liabilities in the residences, it must articulate that position to the population who will be affected. In failing to consult floor fellows and RLMs in the changes being made to the residence system, McGill shows its true colours. Budget cuts have caused a calcified tunnel vision, where lip service to the essential components of floor fellow working conditions is perceived as sufficient. McGill must decide whether it will have a consistent support system for its employees and students, or if it will continue to play them off each other for the sake of legal and financial interests.

 

 

 

 

 

1 … 803 804 805 806 807 … 1,363

Read the latest issue

Read the latest issue