Last Wednesday, United Nations Special Rapporteur Maina Kiai spoke on the challenges facing Canada and other civil societies in protecting the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

Hosted by the McGill Centre for Human Rights and Legal Pluralism, the lecture was attended by approximately 50 members of the McGill and Montreal community.

In 2012, Kiai and several other specialists publically condemned the Canadian government’s reaction to the 2012 student protests against tuition increases. He pointed specifically to police reaction to the protests, as well as Bill 78—an emergency bill passed in 2012 that required protestors to give police at least eight hours’ notice of demonstrations.

“What surprises me was the reaction of the government of Canada,” he said. “It reacted very much the same way as governments that are generally known as repressive would react. I thought the Canadian [government] would be open to criticisms, open to constructive ideas, and to engage in a dialogue rather than go on the attack.”

Kiai said that, in civil societies—where individuals and non-governmental institutions seek to improve the welfare of citizens—associations and protests should be able to form without registration with, or authorization from, the government.

“You don’t need to get authorization from the government in order to have peaceful protest,” he said. “Notification rather than authorization is what is important.’’

As a Special Rapporteur for the UN, Kiai cannot impose laws upon Canada or any country he inspects. However, Kiai emphasized the importance of countries creating laws that uphold the international sanctions on the rights to freedom of assembly and association that he recommends.

“All we can do is put [the sanctions] out and hope that people will pick it up in their daily work,” Kiai said. “I can condemn the city of Montreal, but beyond that it is up to you guys [.…] The sanctions need to be done in Canada, by Canadians through Canadian mechanisms; we can only support them.”

Kiai added that government relations within civil societies have to be both transparent and expressive.

“Any state that wants to know how its people are feeling should give them the space to express that,” Kiai said. “A state that really cares for its people should be able to allow as much space for protest and for speaking out as it can.”

Pearl Eliadis, a professor at McGill’s Faculty of Law and co-organizer of the event, said that the purpose of hosting the event was to raise awareness of the importance of freedom of assembly and association, and to enable students to protect themselves through knowledge of their human rights.

According to Eliadis, these topics are particularly important in light of the Maple Spring student protests.

“Freedom of association and assembly are obviously of great issue to Quebec given the Maple Spring, but also we’re starting to see the connection with the international and global issues on the repression on civil societies,” Eliadis said. “Students need to be engaged, but at the same time, they need to be able to protect themselves. [It’s] an issue around making sure they’re safe and that they understand their rights and responsibilities.’’

Eric Moses Gashirabake, a First Year law student who attended the event, praised Kiai’s promotion of awareness of the barriers faced by civil societies around the world. Gashirabake pointed to Kiai’s experience in Kenya, where he worked as the chairman of Kenya’s National Human Rights Commission.

“[Kiai] is in a minority of activists in Kenya doing amazing things to promote democracy,” Gashirabake said. “From someone who is going on the ground not just in Kenya but internationally to look at the similarities and points of convergence [in different civil societies], it’s a nice opportunity for us students—regardless of what we’re studying—to know that this is a civic duty that we can all be engaged in.”

The speech was one of two public lectures preceding Kiai’s presentation of the first full report of his findings from his time assessing freedom of assembly and association in various countries to the UN in New York on Oct. 29.

The McGill Senate could face changes to its membership and operation following a discussion about its purpose at its Oct. 16 meeting.

Principal Suzanne Fortier said a working group of senators will be formed to create recommendations about potential changes to Senate’s structure and operations, which will  then be voted on at a future Senate meeting.

Topics under consideration at Wednesday’s meeting included Senate’s purpose and function, as well as time allocation, size, the principal’s role to chair meetings, and Senate’s role in making academic decisions. McGill’s Senate is the main governing body that oversees the academic activities of the university. According to its Rules of Procedure, Senate can revise the conduct of their own meetings.

“The present rules may be amended by a majority vote of those present at any regular or special meeting,” the document reads.

However, approval from the Board of Governors is required in order to revise Senate’s composition.

At Wednesday’s meeting, some senators said they were dissatisfied with the lack of debate motions receive before passing through Senate. Post-Graduate Students’ Society (PGSS) Secretary-General Jonathan Mooney pointed to Senate’s format as part of the problem.

“Rather than just getting presentations for information and approving things that have already been decided, there need to be opportunities where the competencies and qualifications of Senate are used in the decision making process,” he said. “There should be times when we disagree. We should get some engagement that way.”

Political Science Professor and Faculty of Arts Representative Catherine Lu used McGill’s decision to offer Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) last year as an example of an academic decision that passed without much input or debate by Senate.

“When I started [on Senate], I thought I’d be taking part in decision making about academic matters of the university,” she said. “I was astounded by the lack of process with respect to [the decision] last year [.… Senate’s] participatory role was neglected; open discussions failed to allow Senate to contribute.”

Religious Studies Representative Haley Dinel suggested that Senate needs to take steps to encourage debate.

“Senate is the ideal institution to have debates on any given issue,” Dinel said. “Perhaps we should have a 20-minute window in which senators could bring forth issues to debate.”

Another suggestion was to provide more information to senators ahead of the meeting to allow them to consider the information. Arts Representative Lydia White suggested presenting fewer annual reports to make more time for Senate to discuss policy-related issues.

“Our annual reports are quite uncontroversial,” White said. “Making them available to senators to ask questions about them without presenting them […] would free up time for the more policy-related issues that Senate might be discussing.”

However, Faculty of Science Representative Gregory Dudek argued that many issues addressed at Senate require a large amount of time for explanation, and that there is not enough time to both fully explain and debate these topics in meetings.

“It’s hard to imagine engaging in debate on big issues without having meetings every day,” he said.

Other senators questioned the composition of Senate. Law representative Guillaume Blais pointed to his previous experience as a member of the University of Guelph’s senate to suggest reducing the number of senators and doing more work in smaller committees.

“At Guelph, this same discussion resulted in reducing the number of Senate members,” Blais said. “There’s merit to work being done in committees.”

107 voting members currently sit on McGill’s senate. In comparison, Guelph’s Senate has 162 members (reduced from 215 members in 2011), and the University of British Columbia has approximately 100.

Another recommendation was from Faculty of Medicine Representative Gary Pekeles, who advocated for Senate to be led by someone other than the principal.

“This committee [should] not be chaired by a single administrator,” Pekeles said. “We should look for leadership coming from the floor.”

Faculty of Science Representative Graham Bell said the conversation ultimately reveals fundamental concerns about the way that Senate operates.

“The question is whether Senate is necessary at all,” Bell said. “The conclusion of the debate is that we are uncertain about what we are in this room for, and perhaps that’s a point well worth investigating. Apparently, in some respects, the business of Senate is failing to perform its function.”

Incoming Dentistry students for Fall 2014 will pay a new mandatory $2,500 fee per semester to contribute to the Faculty of Dentistry’s $18 million relocation project.

The fee is the result of a student-initiated referendum question run  through the Dental Students’ Society (DSS), and will not affect current students.

Announced on Oct. 18, the relocation project will move the faculty’s facilities to a new location on the corner of McGill College Avenue and Rue Sherbrooke by June 2014.

The project includes the modernization of most of the faculty’s activities, including research, clinical teaching, and its undergraduate teaching clinic.

The faculty has raised $6 million to date to fund the $18 million move, mainly through donations from faculty supporters. The remainder will be funded through a loan.

The referendum question, which was proposed by DSS President Sina Hashemi, was approved by 87 per cent of current students, although the fee will only affect new students.

According to Hashemi, the decision to exempt current students from the contribution is due to two reasons.

“First, current students were not aware of this contribution prior to applying and therefore would not have been able to budget accordingly,” Hashemi said. “Second, this contribution may have affected their decision to attend McGill’s Faculty of Dentistry.”

The fee will amount to $800,000 per year and will help cover repayment of the faculty’s loan. Total student fees paid by first-year dentistry undergraduates from Quebec are currently $7,134, while out of province Canadians pay $15,556.

Hashimi said that DSS’s decision to impose the fee was voluntary.

“The faculty suggested the students consider contributing to the faculty,” Hashemi said. “The DSS felt it necessary to help fund the move because we will be contributing and investing in our careers.”

Austin Chang, a grade 12 student from British Columbia and prospective McGill Dentistry applicant, said the fee may influence his intention to attend the university.

“This new fee greatly affects my desire to apply for McGill Dentistry, as the extra expense will take a significant toll on my student budget,” Chang said. “Since it is all students [who] would be using the new facilities, then it is all students that should help in compensation for the move. Perhaps a lessened fee for current students would be better than none at all.”

Yuxin Mei, U3 Dentistry, voted ‘yes’ in the referendum to impose the fee and said he would still choose to come to McGill even if he had to pay the fee.

“McGill has always been my top choice and I’d even pay another $10,000 to go to this school because as a Quebec resident, it’s still cheaper than [Dentistry programs in] the rest of Canada.”

The relocation comes as the result of the closure of the Royal Victoria Hospital (RVH) in 18 months. As a result, the RVH dental department will need to move into the space currently occupied by the faculty in the Montreal General Hospital (MGH).

According to Paul Allison, dean of the Faculty of Dentistry, the relocation is also intended to consolidate the faculty’s activities and address its outdated equipment and lack of space.

“The clinic itself is probably 20 years old, so the equipment needs to be replaced,” Allison said. “There’s a considerable lack of space [and] the lab hasn’t seen any major renovations since the 1980s.”

Allison added that the move will benefit students and the greater community by bringing everyone together in one space. Currently, the Faculty of Dentistry has teaching and research activities in a number of locations. By June 2014, the faculty plans to have completely vacated MGH and to have mostly vacated the other buildings, aside from some offices and research activities that will remain in their current locations.

“[It] will provide the public with easier access to our clinic by public transportation,” Allison said. “The new space will bring research, clinical teaching, graduate, and dental services together, and become the hub of the Faculty’s community outreach activities, all in a state-of-the-art facility.”

On Oct. 18, the Quebec Liberal Party (PLQ) McGill hosted PLQ leader Philippe Couillard and local Liberal Members of the National Assembly at McGill’s Thomson House.

This event marked Couillard’s first introduction to the McGill community as the leader of the PLQ. His predecessor, Jean Charest, resigned last September following the party’s loss in the provincial election. Couillard, a former neurosurgeon and professor at Université de Sherbrooke, spoke on the history of the PLQ and its values.

“I always start by telling people who we are—the history of our party, founded in 1867, centred around the economy, jobs creation, and individual freedoms,” Couillard said.

Couillard also spoke on the party’s stance on current issues and policy, notably the debate surrounding the Quebec Charter of Values, a bill proposed by the incumbent Parti Québécois. The bill seeks to implement certain provisions such as restricting public sector workers from wearing conspicuous religious symbols. Couillard spoke on the PLQ’s opposition to the bill and the importance of individual freedoms.

“We don’t like [the proposed charter] at all. Because we are so much attached to individual freedoms that we will never allow the government to jeopardize those freedoms that we had fought so hard for,” Couillard said. “That’s why we are going to be tough on those issues.”

Although the crowd was small—approvimately 50 members of the McGill and Montreal community were present—attendees were engaged throughout the event, and Couillard’s answers to questions were regularly met with rounds of applause. Luca Varone, a U3 Law student and PLQ supporter, said that he was impressed by Couillard’s presentation.

“I wanted to get to know Couillard a little better [….] He has struck me as a rather sincere politician and this event confirmed my impression,” Varone said. “I was struck by not only the conciliatory tone but also the positive rhetoric […] he commands by [making] clear statements [….] As a result of this, I think I would consider getting more into the Liberal Party.”

As a campus group, PLQ McGill acts as a liaison between the PLQ and McGill students looking to become involved with the party. Marten Crevier, U2 Arts and member of PLQ McGill, spoke on the club’s goal to raise awareness for the party and Quebec politics as a whole.

“To introduce the values of PLQ to people [is not our only goal],’’ Crevier said. “A good number of students are international students […] so simply to educate people on the political dynamic in Quebec is an interesting thing.’’

Couillard spoke on the importance of speaking at events in order to access the younger generation, which he said is a basis of support for the party.

“We have a very powerful youth wing in our party that gets 33 per cent of the vote in large convention, which is unique in Canada,” Couillard said. “So to be able to recruit members in CEGEP and universities for us is extremely important—either [to] become members or […] interested in our ideas.’’

The PLQ will continue its tour of universities with visits to Laval and UQAM in the coming weeks.