McGill Senate convened for its first meeting of the 2018-2019 academic year on September 13. Principal Suzanne Fortier discussed this year’s increased participation in, and success of Frosh, as well as the demographics of the current student body. There was an influx of students from China, who make up the second largest part of the international student body, followed closely by students from the United States, France, and Saudi Arabia.
Fortier also brought up the conflict between Canada and Saudi Arabia arising from a Twitter dispute between Canada’s Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and the subsequent effect it has had on students, particularly on postdoctoral fellows and graduate students at the University. Fortier stated that approximately 350 McGill students were forced to return to their country following the declaration from the Saudi Kingdom.
In addition, Fortier announced that McGill and other universities up in the Bureau de coopération interuniversitaire (BCI) have scheduled meetings with the leadership of all political parties in preparation for the upcoming Quebec elections on October 1. Fortier stressed the importance of this meeting, saying that the universities will “do our work to put on the agenda the important role that higher education plays in this province.”
The central topic of the Senate meeting revolved around the motion set forth by Professor and senator Gregory Mikkelson, an associate professor in the School of Environment and the Department of Philosophy, regarding the possibility of McGill fully divesting from all fossil fuel companies.
In May 2018, the Steering Committee reviewed Professor Mikkelson’s motion and agreed to defer the question of divestment to the Senate during the September meeting. The Committee then decided to propose their own motion inquiring into whether Senate members believe it to be “necessary or desirable to express an opinion on a matter that has been considered by the Board [of Governors] (BoG),” and whether it was within their responsibilities as a Senate.
“ This is a matter that is both outside the authority and confidence of the Senate” said Provost and Vice-Principal (Academic) Christopher Manfredi. He did not believe Senate should hear the issue of divest “because there already exists a clear mechanism in the Board’s own procedures through which members of the McGill community can bring this matter to the Board’s attention.” He continued, “I’d argue that action by the Senate is undesirable because it would violate a fundamental aspect of the division of authority on which the bicameral nature of the university’s governing structure depends.”
In an interview with the Daily, Jed Lenetsky, one of the chief organizers of Divest McGill said, “I think the overwhelming interest in the vote and in the issue, and […] also the passion that so many people had about this issue” make it important for the motion to be brought to the Senate. Lenetsky also spoke of McGill’s past instances of divestment, including McGill’s apartheid divestment, which was carried out in Senate. “Senate does have a historic role in these discussions at McGill […] Given that the Senate is a larger, more diverse body and [its] stronger connection to the McGill community it definitely made sense for the Senate to step in,” explained Lenetsky.
After many questions and comments regarding whether this motion proposed by the Committee was to be applied to all future issues or topics, Professor Mikkelson read the motion. Citing three circumstances over the past decades in which McGill chose to divest from problematic investments, the motion urges the current Senate to follow suit. McGill divested from South African companies, including fossil fuel corporations in 1985, and then again during the 2000’s from corporations doing business in Myanmar, as well as from tobacco companies in 2007. Mikkelson urged the university to reconsider their “current policy of investing endowment funds in fossil fuel corporations.”
Mikkelson expressed his desire for the board to go into more detail into how divestment should be executed at McGill once the motion passed. Important questions that need to be answered, such as the feasible time frame for divesting, were the subject of his questioning. Mikkelson also brought up more logistical issues, like whether or not McGill should divest immediately, or start with a subset like the University of California system, who are now selling off all coal and tar sand stocks.
McGill is among many universities in Canada that have not yet divested; the University of Laval being the only university in the country which has committed to divestment. During the meeting, Mikkelson pointed out that McGill currently invests in 29 corporations, nine of which are in coal, and eight of which are in tar sands.
“In the Canadian context it’s especially important for public institutions to insist on targeting both ends of our fossil-fuel problem, […] the consumption end by working toward carbon neutrality, and the production end through our investment policy,” stated the Senator.
“[In the winter 2015 semester] [Canadian financial magazine]Corporate Knights came out with a study showing that if the Board had divested when students first asked them to and re-invested the money in greener stocks the university already owned, McGill would have made a profit of $40 million dollars,” Mikkelson pointed out.
While McGill as a university has not yet pledged to divest, the issue of divesting brought to the Board’s Committee to Advice on Matters of Social Responsibility (CAMSR) initially in 2013 by Divest McGill, is strongly endorsed by the Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU), the Post-Graduate Students’ Society (PGSS), the McGill Association of University Teachers (MAUT), and the faculties of Arts, Law, and Environment.
Fortier, who sits on the Investment Committee, was asked if the motion passing in Senate would incite the Board to take any definitive action. She said that it would, and that she “[thinks] it is not accurate to say that the Board is not concerned, […] in fact our investment practices and policy have very much focused on these questions.” Fortier continued, “The Board now has a mandate in sustainability. […] [We] are not ignorant to these issues.”
Another Senator weighed in on the discussion, pointing out the reality of investment. Senator Bouchon explained, “we don’t control the companies in which [our managers] invest and in some of the investments we have to lock in those investments for five or ten years, so even if we decide tomorrow to divest we won’t see the impact [soon].”
The motion was subject to a last minute amendment in its wording, altering the original intention of forcing the Senate to create a committee on outlining how to divest, to one that has the Senate simply advising the BoG to divest from all fossil fuel companies.
Lenetsky explained what he believed the passing of this motion meant in the broader scheme of divestment at McGill. “The main significance is that it really showed how out of touch the BoG’s decision was in terms of where the McGill community is at on this issue,” he told The Daily. “If anything we’re more invigorated to do whatever it takes to make the will of the McGill community manifest itself in the BoG deciding on divestment. […] We have never had more of a community backing behind us.”