The Daily’s GA Recommendations
The General Assembly will take place Wednesday, February 10 at 5pm in the Shatner cafeteria.
Tar sands – YES
This motion calls on SSMU to investigate all investments in excess of $15,000 for ties with the tar sands industrial development. It calls on all such investments to be screened by the Financial Ethics Review Committee (FERC) in accordance with the review process outlined in SSMU’s bylaws.
The devastating environmental and social effects caused by the tar sands are too great to list here. Given that SSMU retains bonds of worth $32,000 in a company that owns and refines 98,000 acres of tar sands in Fort McMurray, it is imperative that SSMU investigate all its current and future investments for ties to this kind of extraction.
FERC has failed to meet this year, and it is time that this group take the job of upholding SSMU’s financial ethics seriously. However, we would recommend lowering the $15,000 threshold so that investments of smaller amounts would also be subject to ethics review.
Discriminatory Groups – NO
This motion argues that because Choose Life has used coercion and discrimination to prevent access to factual information regarding safe, free, and legal abortions, SSMU should ban any pro-life group or other group that violates the health of any person or engages in acts of discrimination.
Choose Life has engaged in some reprehensible practices since its inception, but this motion makes the faulty leap of logic that all pro-life groups are the same. A pro-life group could exist on campus that respects students’ safety and provides beneficial medical services, like support for pregnant women.
The poor wording of the motion could also be interpreted to condemn any group that might support the pro-life stance – for religious, political, or personal reasons. Everyone has the right to their personal beliefs, and as long as they express them in a constructive manner, SSMU should facilitate the discussion.
Restoration of $5 Bill ATM Machines on Campus – YES
This motion calls for SSMU to negotiate with the University for the return of $5 bills in ATM machines on campus – a practice which ended in September.
This motion will not only help vendors – who will find it easier to make change – but students and student-run food services like Architecture Café. Having $20 is great, but not if you can’t use it.
Self-Funded Tuition Model – YES
This motion calls on SSMU to lobby against the self-funded model proposed by Desautels Faculty of Management for its MBA program, and urge the University create a formal policy against this type of funding.
The Daily supports this motion because education isn’t just a good for individuals; it’s a good for all of society. High tuition fees discourage people from working for the public interest in non-profits. Quebec may be in the midst of a funding shortage for post-secondary education, but we should look for provincial alternatives rather than immediately jack up the price of utition.
Many MBA students may be fine with the tuition hike, but this could be an indication of more changes. At the University of Toronto, an MBA tuition hike was quickly followed by an increase in law tuition; we would hate to see that happen at McGill. This matter affects undergraduate and graduate students alike; SSMU must lobby against self-funded tuition.
The Defense of Human Rights, Social Justice, and Environmental Protection– YES
This motion calls on SSMU to start using FERC to investigate McGill’s investments in companies that violate human rights – specifically those involved in Burma and the Occupied Territories – and if this fails, to create a new Corporate Social Committee (CSR) that will solicit freedom of information requests.
The Daily supports the spirit of this motion, though we’re uncertain of whether it appoints appropriate tasks to the right groups. McGill should not invest money that students pay through tuition in companies involved in activities that violate human rights – and investment in Burma and the Occupied Territories should be condemned.
Neither FERC nor any other SSMU body will have the power to change McGill’s investment policy, but SSMU should try all means to make McGill’s investments more transparent. A possible amendment to the motion might mandate SSMU’s representatives to the Senate – SSMU president and VP (University Affairs) – and the Board of Governors to make sure both bodies investigate the matter.
SSMU for Free Quality Accessible Education – YES
This motion calls on SSMU to unite with students from across Canada and Quebec to demand free, quality education, the reduction and eventual elimination of tuition, and greater support for students in financial need. It also calls on SSMU to lobby for better working conditions for students on campus.
We support this motion in hopes that it will allow SSMU to work more closely with student unions like AMUSE or AGSEM and throw their weight behind them during collective bargaining. Working conditions on campus must be improved: student researchers do not receive standardized salaries, while bookstore employees need to formalize their relationship with their employers. Worse, McGill has shown itself to be a union-buster: when teaching assistants held a strike in 2008, McGill fired them from non-teaching assistant jobs.
SSMU must also lobby for greater financial aid and bursaries provided by the University, and work with the student movement to achieve the ideal of free education, accessible to all. Quebec tuition fees will continue to rise until 2012, so now is the time to act.
Ancillary Fees – YES
This motion calls for greater controls on the increase in ancillary fees, which go toward things like the athletics improvement fund and copyright charges. The provincial government imposed a cap on any increases, limiting it to $15 per semester. This cap is due to end in summer 2011. Students already pay high ancillary fees – $1,500 a year for out of province students. The motion demands that the maximum amount be maintained or lowered.
Ancillary fee increases have been used by university administrations as a way to overcome the opposition to tuition increases by charging additional fees. SSMU should do everything possible to ensure that McGill does not use the expiration as a back door to increased tuition, especially given the University’s dismissive attitude toward provincial financial restrictions.
Tags: This article has no tags
Adam wrote:
Re: "The Defense of Human Rights, Social Justice, and Environmental Protection" (which is a title for the kind of motion I think we can all agree on...)
Whoa, I thought The Daily always prided itself on always being pro-direct democracy, through referenda and especially GAs.
SPHR's motion is for a small committee to give their opinion to the University on where there should and should not be divestment.
That's not only giving the students no chance to vote on whether they want the University to divest in a given situation … it's not even letting a General Assembly vote occur on the matter. So much for the Daily's professed support for direct democracy. So much for its traditional support for the General Assembly process!
The Daily has always argued with the "less progressive" voices on campus that the GA process allows for engaging opposing ideas and coming up with better solutions. So by that very logic, they should recognize the harm of giving the power of recommending divestments to a small committee. The Daily's traditional position on GAs conforms with what I wrote next to SPHR's Hyde Park: "a student body vote will be less likely than a committee of just a few appointed people to divest ON A WHIM, perhaps screwing over workers in various developing countries and having a disastrous effect on their lives."
The Daily has criticized what often happens when a well-intentioned IMF, World Bank or NGO shifts money away from an enterprise in order to support something else. They probably know that the same thing happens with divestment, so it's important that we be extra careful … and they have argued that direct democracy and the General Assembly process leads to being extra judicious. That's why their support of this motion to give these decisions to FERC or a new Corporate Responsibility Committee just doesn't make sense.
Hell, so much for the Daily's stated desire to make a politically active community! What kind of pride can students feel in a helpful divestment action when they haven't voted for it in any form; it's just been decided for them while they're trying to catch the 24 bus?
It doesn't make sense that The Daily has just thrown out the beliefs about the political process that it has been trying to sell students on -- sometimes against tough opposition -- for at least the last 4 years. What extenuating factor did they discuss at the Board meeting to merit dumping their trusted positions for this one case of SPHR's motion?
Feb 8, 2010 at 04:17 AM
julesie wrote:
Am I the only one who finds the Daily's editorials and voting recommendations predictable and simplistic? They always suggest the same things "more government funding" "more SSMU fees" "less university fees" "free, free, free, give me more more more" (now where do you think the government gets its money?) "SSMU should [insert unrealistic, out-of-scope-for-a-student-society lobbying campaign here]" "Free Palestine"
uh.
Feb 8, 2010 at 03:54 PM
AD wrote:
The reason there is no more specific details right now about where investments should go and where they shouldn't is because no one has a conclusive list that is public of all McGill's holdings.
Regardless of whether you think McGill should hold assets in Israeli companies, or Burmese companies, or American companies that make bullets used in Israel and Burma, I think students deserve the right to know where SSMU and McGill invest.
A committee is better placed than an individual student to look for this information. When it has produced a report, SSMU or the students at large could more easily assess what should be a part of our institutional investment portfolios.
Feb 8, 2010 at 05:16 PM
wrote:
"A committee is better placed than an individual student to look for this information. When it has produced a report, SSMU or the students at large could more easily assess what should be a part of our institutional investment portfolios."
This is not a real argument against why each instance shouldn't go to a GA vote or referendum. Of course, a Committee should do the research of the school's funds. That's obvious -- otherwise, every student at the school would do the research!
But after the research, the power of decision should be given to the student body via referenda or GAs to discuss and then vote on.
That's been a main part of The Daily's argument for the last 4 years for direct democracy and GAs. The other part is that small committees of representatives aren't good at such important decisions as the students themselves, as I detailed above.
Feb 8, 2010 at 08:02 PM
Adam wrote:
AD wrote: "A committee is better placed than an individual student to look for this information. When it has produced a report, SSMU or the students at large could more easily assess what should be a part of our institutional investment portfolios."
This is not a real argument against why each instance shouldn't go to a GA vote or referendum. Of course, a committee should do the research of the school's funds. That's obvious -- otherwise, every student at the school would do the research!
But after the research, the power of decision should be given to the student body via referenda or GAs to discuss and then vote on.
That's been a main part of The Daily's argument for the last 4 years for direct democracy and GAs. The other part is that small committees of representatives aren't good at such important decisions as the students themselves, as I detailed above.
Feb 8, 2010 at 08:04 PM
Jon Ames wrote:
I'd like to give The Daily the benefit of the doubt here, but it's simply unbelievable to me that journalists would be so naive as to interpret the motion's token mention of Burma in 1996 as anything but a reference for historical precedent. It is quite clear that it has nothing to do with Burma now, and The Daily was pretty reckless in thinking could sell the readers otherwise. SPHR in their Hyde Park of this issue is not making that claim about Burma's use in the preamble.
My disbelief in their good faith is increased by the fact that since The Daily is supposed to have a pro-human rights agenda, you'd think they would have at least expressed disappointment that SPHR's motion did not mention more human rights situations and occupations recognized as illegal by UN-consensus.
As for The Daily's going on the record here as supporting divestment in the "Occupied Territories of Palestine, The Daily knows that many Palestinian labor leaders in the Territories have communicated that they are against a boycott of Israeli companies and international companies whose goods or personnel Israelis are using in parts of the West Bank.
Perhaps people on the EdBoard or the voting staff felt pressure from staffers tied through social connections to SPHR … I mean one-stater Niko Block is now a news editor.
With Monday's issue, the editors skipped the chance to correct some unequivocal errors and a lack of source attribution related to the West Bank before the General Assembly vote. Their Mind-And-Body editor apparently, without attribution, used research and paraphrase from Palestinian activist's journal Electronic Intifada.
See here [ http://tinyurl.com/ydhpd6e ]
Giving attention to the unattributed use of this activist journal would not make The Daily look unbiased when they recommended SPHR's motion.
With the plagiarism and attribution scandal involving one of the editors a couple years back, one could see how they would not want to attract such attention before the GA vote was over.
Feb 9, 2010 at 04:09 PM
We've switched commenting systems. Please scroll to the bottom of the article, where you can now log in and respond to this story.