Perhaps the reason why Canada lacks urgency in combating its education crisis is due to the Canadian media. Indeed, for years, media sources across the country and the world have been spinning an opposite narrative: that the state of Canadian K–12 education somehow deserves applause. As recently as 2016, for example, the CBC published an article calling 15-year-old Canadians “among the best global performers in science, math,” and such sentiment has subsequently been echoed by advocacy groups across the country. Fix My Schools, a parent-led non-partisan advocacy group, even went as far as calling Ontario’s public education system “one of the best in the world.” The result? The birth of an international narrative that Canada is some sort of an education superpower. In reality, not only is such a narrative a complete illusion, but it is also a disservice, as millions of Canadians are being falsely led to believe the country is successfully producing the leaders of tomorrow. 

Across the board, evidence shows that students are struggling at key educational skills, often deemed fundamental, beginning as early as Grade 3. There, the report found that just 73 per cent of Ontario students met the provincial standard in reading, while only 65 per cent of Grade 3 students met the provincial standard in writing, and a mere 59 per cent of students met the provincial standard in mathematics. Unfortunately, these results are not limited to Ontario: data collected from 100 primary and 40 secondary schools in Quebec show that 20 per cent of students are failing French, with an additional 25 per cent of students failing math.

These are serious concerns that shouldn’t be taken lightly, especially when one considers the impact of education on students. Studies show clearly that K–12 mathematical ability not only has a direct impact on brain development but that it often dictates future achievement. Similar studies insist that the same can be said for writing and general literacy ability. But what makes education unique – at least when compared to most problems – is that we cannot just throw money at the problem and hope it corrects itself. Simply put, gaps in education tend to compound. By all accounts, “even at high-performing, wealthy high schools, students who have fallen far behind academically in 4th and 8th grade have less than a 1 in 3 chance of being ready for college or a career by the end of high school.” This means that for many of the students outlined above, it might already be too late: the gaps in knowledge might be insurmountable.  

So what should be done? Many advocacy groups believe that Canada should simply spend more money to better fund its schools. Yet further investigation reveals that this is clearly not the case, as Canada ranks in the top quartile of expenditure on its schools. Rather, any solution should revolve around three key steps. 

For one, Canada needs greater transparency in its reporting on K–12 student achievement. As it currently stands, when reporting on improvements in student achievement, the country continues to group together students who use assistive technology (AT) on standardized tests with those who do not. While the rise of AT is positive for learning, its relatively recent adaptation means that samples of student test scores taken in 2005 (before AT) and 2019 are not only different but also incomparable. By ignoring this fact and persisting to group the two types of students together, the Canadian government is not only breaking a fundamental rule of statistics, but it is (perhaps unintentionally) inflating student achievement. For example, from 2005 to 2019, the number of “up to standard” Grade 3 reading scores improved from 59 per cent to 74 per cent. At least that’s what Canadians were told. In reality, only when adjusting for a similar sample is the true improvement seen: students only improved to 62 per cent proficiency. Even the International Dyslexia Association (IDA) Ontario was “surprised to learn the extent of the use of Assistive Technology/Scribing is not reported in the annual EQAO Provincial Reports.” 

Canada must simultaneously double down on traditional student testing, like timed closed-book examinations. In recent years, provinces have moved away from traditional testing such as exams. While there are noted flaws in timed examinations, evidence clearly shows that continuous testing is often still the most accurate evaluator of student achievement: they inform a teacher where a class or individual is struggling, allowing them to tailor lessons and respond to student weaknesses. There is no reason why traditional and new styles of testing should be treated as mutually exclusive, and yet they often are. Canada should embrace more personalized assessments while also increasing the emphasis it places on timed closed-book examinations. Only then will students be properly equipped to tackle university-style assessment, which is mostly a combination of the two styles of assessment.

Finally, the country should look to follow the UK’s lead and introduce mandatory Grade 11 and 12 math courses. Promoting more math is not going to be a popular opinion, as just 53 per cent of Grade 9 students indicate that they like math. However, just because something is unpopular does not make it wrong. On math, too many students fixate on the concepts, deeming them useless, while failing to recognize that simply practicing problem-solving develops strong logical reasoning and analytical skills that they will use for life. All Canadians should want strong critical thinking skills, and mandating mathematics through Grade 12 would be a step toward making this a reality.

As it currently stands, education in Canada is at a critical point. While Canadian high schoolers still score well on standardized tests, the country is experiencing eroding levels of underlying student achievement as elementary school students continue to struggle. This means that while there is still time to change, the window is closing. Getting a proper education remains one of the greatest privileges anyone can receive, as its benefits are truly immeasurable. It should be Canadians’ number one priority to ensure we remain leaders in this field.

The post Canadian Exceptionalism? Not in Education appeared first on The McGill Daily.

For those who have used ChatGPT before, the platform’s widespread adoption can’t have been much of a surprise. One quick glance at the platform often leaves new users marvelling at its capabilities. From being able to tell jokes, to being able to pen full-page articles all at the push of a button, ChatGPT is able to replicate tasks which, for decades, have seemed only achievable by humans. More impressive still, further in-depth testing of the platform’s capabilities have led to some truly remarkable results. On December 31, a paper published by Michael Bommarito and Daniel Katz, professors at the Chicago-Kent College of Law and Michigan State University of Law respectively, revealed that ChatGPT was even able to pass the bar exam, reporting that the chatbot’s top two and top three choices were “correct 71% and 88% of the time.” 

At McGill, ChatGPT’s rapid rise to stardom is unsurprisingly becoming an increasingly prevalent topic of conversation in the classroom. In my experience as a student at the Desautels Faculty of Management, several of my professors have polled students about their knowledge of the platform. Some have gone even further, verbally committing to redesigning future assignments with the knowledge that students can use ChatGPT to help them answer questions. While such commitments mostly led to reactions of amusement by students in the classroom, there’s no doubt that ChatGPT’s capabilities have left many professors seriously worried about its broader academic implications. And for good reason; a mere two weeks after the platform made headlines about passing the bar exam, it once again made the news when professors at the Wharton School of Business, University of Pennsylvania, announced that the chatbot was able to pass exams given to their MBA students. Here at Desautels, my Operations Management professor revealed to students that ChatGPT was able score 80 per cent (an A-) on the 2021 edition of his final exam. 

Concerns about the rapid advancement of technology is nothing new – in 1942, Isaac Asimov famously published his three laws of robotics as a result of a fear that robots would eventually completely replace humans – but never before have machines been this close to actually fully replicating “human” thought. And while Asimov’s fears have yet to materialize, ChatGPT’s capabilities definitely do raise fears about humans being replaced by robots, at least in the sphere of academia. 

AI looks to be improving at an increasingly fast rate. On January 23, Microsoft officially announced a new multi-billion-dollar investment into ChatGPT, with a commitment to improving its capabilities beyond its current limits. These commitments, while undoubtedly exciting, also run contrary to the spirit of learning within the academic setting, raising broader questions about the role of AI in academia as a whole. 

McGill has frequently taken measures to prevent widespread cheating and preserve academic integrity. Back in 2003, for example, the university responded to the rise of the internet by passing a Senate resolution designed to underscore that “all students must understand the meaning and consequences of cheating, plagiarism and other academic offences under the Code of Student Conduct and Disciplinary Procedures.” But while responses to “old” tech were more straightforward, responses to the rise of “new” adaptive tech like AI likely won’t be. Unlike websites such as Google, which actively seek and return existing web pages, AI creates them. This means that while Google can only simply return previously written papers, AI like ChatGPT can go one step further: creating new, never-before-seen papers for its users. 

With AI blurring the line between human and machine, blurred too becomes the line between what is and what is not academic integrity. For example, plagiarism is currently widely defined as presenting another person’s work as your own. But how does this definition extend to the use of AI, where a student doesn’t present “another person’s,” but rather a machine’s, work as their own? Questions also arise about how the principles of academic integrity apply to those who use AI simply to aid their work, rather than to replace it. For example, if a student uses AI to help teach them how to resolve a similarly – but not identically – worded question, or if a student requested AI feedback on an essay they wrote, are these instances of academic malpractice?   

These concerns are relatively widespread. Just two months after ChatGPT’s release, students took the first steps to combating the rise of AI in academia by releasing GPTZero – an AI software designed to red-flag AI-generated writing. While GPTZero is definitely a step in the right direction in the long road to preserving academic integrity, it is exactly that: just a step. 

Ultimately, there’s no denying that platforms like ChatGPT, powered by fresh investments from many of the world’s tech giants, aren’t going anywhere. Nor can one deny that as AI continues to blur the line between human and machine, blurred too becomes the line between what is and what is not academic integrity. While we should definitely welcome the benefits that AI provides, we should equally look to resolve the very real threats that it poses. Only then will we actually be able to truly preserve the academic integrity we so clearly value. 

The post Blurring the Line Between Human and Machine appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Canada continues to fall short of its climate commitments. Despite pledging to “tackle climate” when signing onto the Paris Climate Agreement (PCA) back in 2016, Trudeau is only fractionally closer to honouring such commitments as Canada continues to be graded “highly insufficient” by all PCA metrics. All the while, the Prime Minister’s actions suggest that Canada might actually be moving further backwards, rather than forwards, on meeting its legally binding goals. 

For Trudeau’s climate policy, the devil is truly in the details. Eager to reduce personal consumption, the Liberals have consistently tightened regulations surrounding individual usage either via regulations, such as a federal carbon tax, or through various incentives, like electric car tax rebates. And while such initiatives are certainly steps in the right direction, it seems rather strange that the Prime Minister is choosing not to crack down on industrial consumption in a similarly forceful fashion.

Back in February, some Canadians might have been shocked to learn that much of the country’s waste intended for recycling wasn’t actually being recycled at all. A report conducted by Enquête, a series that airs on Radio Canada, revealed that tonnes of recyclable trash were secretly being sold and shipped to India, where they were ultimately burned. But for many, stories like this play out much like a broken record, repeating every two years or so. Indeed, Canadian firms secretly burning goods intended for recycling seems to be an all too common occurrence in recent years. Canadian recycling companies were first caught doing so in the Philippines back in 2013, and since then instances have only increased. A Politico report found that since 2017, Canadian recycling firms have illegally shipped more than 2,300 metric tonnes of garbage to a plethora of Asian countries, including Malaysia, Hong Kong, India, and Vietnam. 

You would imagine that any Canadian firm that breaks the country’s environmental regulations would most certainly face the most severe repercussions at the government’s disposal, especially given  our repeated verbal commitment to “tackle climate change.” But that simply has not been the case. As firms illegally shipped tonnes of garbage to various countries around the world, the federal government mostly chose to officiate by the sidelines, offering mere warnings as a primary remedy to try and resolve the crisis. Even in the rare instances when the federal government chose to actually issue fines – which they did in just 21 “exceptional” cases – these fines averaged a measly $400 or $2,000, a negligible number for essentially all firms involved.  

Unfortunately, the Prime Minister’s environmental oversight doesn’t look like it will stop anytime soon. In March, Canadian officials met with Indian representatives with the purpose of potentially negotiating a free trade deal. While such a move would undoubtedly benefit both parties economically, it is nonetheless surprising to see Canada engaging in such talks given our lofty environmental goals. After all, India’s environmental laws have historically been dodgy at best; reports of mass pollution and stories of mass dumping have long tainted the country’s environmental reputation. With this in mind, one cannot help but ponder the global environmental ramifications of a deal that would likely only further increase India’s exports, and thus its carbon footprint. One cannot help but wonder why Justin Trudeau suddenly feels the need to reward a country whose notoriously bad environmental behaviour has frequently been the epitome of what not to do with a free trade deal. 

Too often it feels like the prime minister is implementing policy not to strengthen Canada’s position on climate change but merely to give off an illusion that he is working for change. Since taking office back in 2015, Trudeau’s Liberals have taken repeated shots at trying to limit Canadian oil and gas output. From a pledge to “cap [local] oil and gas sector emissions” in an effort to reach net zero emissions by 2050, to legislation that has restricted oil tankers’ export capacity in northern British Columbia, the Prime Minister’s efforts have unsurprisingly received praise from around the world. 

However, these efforts mean absolutely nothing if the country continues to operate in its current economic framework. A reduction in local production does not mean that Canada is simultaneously seeing a similar fall in demand. Quite the contrary. But rather than force Canadian firms to seek greener ways to export oil, the Prime Minister has simply met demand by swapping Canadian oil for foreign imports.

In 2021, Reuters reported that Canadian oil imports from Nigeria increased to nearly 40,000 barrels per day, signalling the largest year-on-year change of imports from any country. As of 2022, Canada now imports over 110,000 barrels of oil per day – nearly 25 per cent of all Canadian production – from Saudi Arabia and Nigeria alone. 

Ultimately, swapping Canadian oil for foreign oil cannot be the plan climate activists envisioned when they championed Justin Trudeau’s desire to implement real environmental change. And yet that’s exactly what we’ve gotten. Too often the prime minister has voiced a desire to implement change, but too little has he been willing to go the lengths required to create a tangible difference.

Back in 2016, Prime Minister Trudeau promised that he would help transform Canada into a leader in fighting climate change. Six years on from that promise and with Canada falling behind, the only leader that Justin Trudeau’s pseudo-environmentalist agenda has turned Canada into is one defined by hypocrisy.   

The post Justin Trudeau’s Pseudo-Environmentalist Agenda appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Who are the CAQ? How have they become so popular? 

To understand the CAQ, it is important first to consider the Quebec political scene. “Québec politics has a number of specific features when you compare it to politics in all or most other provinces,” explains Daniel Béland, Director of the McGill Institute for the Study of Canada and a Professor at McGill, in an interview with the Daily. “First, for obvious reasons, language is a key issue in Quebec politics, which is seldom the case in other provinces — “with the exception of New Brunswick, [Québec is] the only officially bilingual province in Canada.” “Second, the issue of whether Quebec should remain part of Canada has been a major issue since the early 1970s,” Béland added.

The CAQ has been particularly conscious of both of these factors and actively plays into them via its “positioning,” says Bryan Breguet, the Vancouver-based poll analyst behind tooclosetocall.ca, over an email exchange with the Daily. It “started as this party that wanted to change things, similar to the [Action Démocratique du Québec], thus why they merged. Over time, it has transformed into a much more centrist force. It’s ‘popularist’ in the sense that the party often adopts the position that is popular.” “To win [in Quebec] you need to build the right coalition on two axes.” The CAQ knows that and “they dominate because they are at the centre both economically and on the independence question.”

As a result, the party has been able to take over the politics of a province that has seen its elections historically dominated by the Parti Québécois (PQ) and Québec Liberals (PLQ). Serving as a coalition “of federalists and (former) sovereignists who support strong provincial autonomy for the province within Canada,” the party actually “does not support the idea of a new referendum on sovereignty,” Béland explains. Instead, the CAQ looks to attract “older Francophones, especially those who don’t have a university degree” – a group which has become their “main” voting base in recent years. 

According to Béland, the CAQ has been able to rise to the top of Quebec politics largely by “attract[ing] votes from Francophones who used to vote for the PLQ and the PQ.” It is primarily at the expense of the PQ, “which needs strong support among Francophones to win seats,” and has grown to even surpass the Liberals, who “traditionally receive disproportionate support from Anglophones and Allophones.”

“Quebec first” nationalism

The CAQ’s embrace of Quebec nationalism has been key to this migration of francophone voters. When asked how that is currently defined in the province, Mr. Béland explained, “Québec nationalism is typically grounded in the claim that Quebecers form a distinct nation characterized by a shared culture, language and history.” “Before the Quiet Revolution, French Canadian nationalism was centred on both language (French) and religion (Catholicism) but the emphasis on religion declined very rapidly starting in the 1960s. Much more recently, over the last two decades, secularism became a major issue for Québec nationalism,”  Béland stated.

This is perhaps the area on which the CAQ has focused the most. “Quebec nationalism is still very strong,” explains Breguet. “Quebecois feel Quebecois first and not Canadians and it hasn’t changed.” Under the leadership of Mr. Legault, the party has united around a concept which has been coined “Quebec first” nationalism. Although the idea has adapted over the years, its central traits remain fixed around a commitment to building a proud French Quebec society. More specifically, the party seeks to reaffirm the historical experience of francophones and their culture in light of an increasingly globalized Canada. To do this, the CAQ attempts to energize francophones by enacting legislation that emboldens Quebec heritage on key issues, such as those regarding  secularism and linguistic protection – highlighted by the adoption of controversial Bills 96 and 21.

Nationalism in action: Bill 96

Passed in May 2022, Bill 96 is Legault’s “Quebec first” policy in action. Serving as the second major piece of legislation passed during his near four-year tenure as premier (the first being Bill 21), Bill 96 was actually inspired by the concerns of the CAQ’s voting base, “older francophones,” many of whom feel that Quebec is losing its French heritage. 

Indeed, alarms were raised among “older francophones” when reports showed that, in 2021, “14,000 people immigrated to Quebec under Canada’s family reunification program, with [just] 51 per cent of these people being able to speak French.” Attempting to alleviate these concerns by doubling down on protecting Quebec heritage, Bill 96 attempts to serve as a solution: Béland explains that, through the law, the CAQ is aiming to give Quebec “stronger autonomy within Canada via the protection of the French language.” 

To accomplish this, the new law pushes for language reform through several mediums, such as education and immigration. Beginning with education, the law is headlined by a cap on the number of students that can attend English speaking CEGEPs, with limits preventing yearly enrollment increases of 8.7 per cent or higher. For those currently enrolled in English CEGEPs, the province has also now mandated that students take at least three 45-hour courses in French, as students “who d[o] not have the speaking and writing knowledge of French required” by the government can no longer obtain a CEGEP diploma. 

Immigrants to Quebec will now have  just six months of English access to provincial government services. After that, they will be mandated to seek services in French – unless an exception may be made because their case deals with “health, public safety or the principles of natural justice.” 

The law has also faced legal setbacks. Amendments to the justice system – which would’ve stipulated that judges will no longer need to have “a specific level of knowledge of a language other than the official language” (French) – have been promptly tossed by the Quebec Superior Court in recent months. Similarly, an amendment that requires all public contracts (that is, contracts entered into by the Civil Administration) to be drafted exclusively in French is also being challenged on the arguments that the costs of translation might leave underprivileged English-speaking Quebecers without the ability to read legal contracts. 

Bill 96 remains incredibly divisive within the province, as just 56 per cent of citizens support it. Crucially, a poll found that 88 per cent of CAQ voters support or strongly support the Bill.

Bill 96

Interestingly, Bill 96 does not hold the sole title for most controversial bill passed by the CAQ during Legault’s tenure as premier. That instead is shared with Bill 21. Officially known as “The Act respecting the laicity of the State,” Bill 21 prohibits the wearing of religious symbols by certain public servants and contractors, like public school teachers and prosecutors, and was perhaps the inspiration behind Bill 96.

Just like Bill 96, Bill 21’s origins are rooted in recent Quebec history. Between “2014 and 2016, the CAQ [was] going nowhere, stuck at 20 per cent and losing in by-elections like Saint-Jerome,” details Breguet. “The PQ was this close to coalescing all the anti PLQ vote.” It was in that context that the PQ launched a similar campaign to limit the wearing of religious symbols in the form of Bill 60, known commonly as the Quebec Charter of Values. Indeed, Bill 60 reads eerily similar to Bill 96, stipulating that “while relatively discrete items such as a finger ring, earring, or small pendants bearing a religious symbol will be allowed,” “more obvious items such as a kippah, turban, hijab, niqab, and larger crosses and religious pendants would be prohibited” in the public sector. And eerily similar to Bill 96, Bill 60 was highly criticised by public officials. So, what happened? Ultimately, it never became law – the PQ lost their re-election campaign just months later to the PLQ, killing Bill 60 in the process. Breguet maintains that there “is easily an alternate universe where the PQ passes the Charter of Quebec values in 2014 and becomes the CAQ”. 

Passed in 2019, Bill 96 ultimately does not share the same fate as Bill 60. It represents Quebec’s  toughest crackdown on religion in recent memory; Immigration Minister Simon Jolin-Barrette said that all public workers in positions of authority are no longer allowed to wear religious symbols, regardless of the size of the object. But it does share the same core vision that Bill 60 had for Quebec, once again seen through the lens of Quebec nationalism.  

To the CAQ, globalization is not something to be embraced. The party is concerned that non-francophone immigration will make Quebec culture vulnerable and increasingly dependent on a world where English is the common language. This is why Legault has embraced what he calls “interculturalism” – an approach that opposes the idea of multiculturalism and instead seeks to assimilate immigrants into “Quebec” culture. The premier said in June that it was important for Quebec to avoid putting all cultures on equal pegging. Bill 21 and Bill 96 are being used to facilitate the preservation of cultural legacies that the CAQ feels are necessary for keeping together social bonds threatened by globalization. With the CAQ looking likely to win re-election, they likely are not going away anytime soon.   

The future of nationalism and the future of the party 

So, what is next for the CAQ? More of the same. The party is wrapping up the election cycle with intentions to double down on its “Quebec First” brand of nationalism, doing so by seeking increased powers for Quebec within Canada; it wants Ottawa to transfer control of immigration to the province entirely to Quebec. The CAQ also intends on ensuring that Bill 96 is passed in its entirety as it plans to fight with Canada’s legal system over disputed amendments, such as the one that ensures judges will no longer need to have “a specific level of knowledge of a language other than the official language.”

Ultimately, whatever they do, polls project that the CAQ and François Legault will likely exit the election with an overwhelming majority of Quebec’s National Assembly supporting him. The premier is so popular that when Pope Francis visited Quebec in July, La Presse’s cartoonist Serge Chapleau drew him beside Pope Francis with someone asking in a crowd: “Who is the man in white beside Legault?” Quebec politics has always been described as a unique game, yet it’s been one the polls show that the CAQ has been able to uniquely master. Despite their short history, polls show that the CAQ are steering the ship of Quebec politics, with Mr. Legault sitting firmly at the helm. He has Quebec nationalism to thank for that. 

The post The CAQ’s Not-So-Long Road to Political Dominance appeared first on The McGill Daily.

SSMU has been McGill University’s official student union representing all undergraduate students since 1908. Serving as the largest student organization at the university, it provides funding and a space for various campus groups while also helping to maintain a student voice on campus. More specifically, SSMU listens to student voices at various meetings and assemblies before advocating on behalf of the student body to administration. To do this, SSMU has a leadership structure of two decision-making bodies: the Legislative Council and the Board of Directors.

Who Serves and What Do They Do? 

SSMU has six elected executives who serve year-long terms: President, VP Student Life, VP Finance, VP External, VP Internal, and VP University Affairs. While all of the executives serve on the Legislative Council, only the president serves on the Board of Directors, representing all other executives. 

Each executive has unique responsibilities. SSMU President Risann Wright determines the broad vision for the Society and provides support for the rest of the team. This year, some of Wright’s responsibilities will include enforcing the Constitution and Internal Regulations and managing faculty relations. SSMU’s VP Finance, Marco Pizarro, serves alongside Wright. As a non-profit organization, the council operates on a strict budget, and as such one of Pizarro’s main responsibilities is to maintain the budget and financial stability of the Society. Two other Council roles are the VPs Internal and External. VP Internal Cat Williams manages internal aspects of community building at McGill through organizing on-campus events – such as Frosh and 4Floors – and sending out a weekly listserv to all members of the Society. VP External Val Mansy oversees SSMU’s relationship with organizations beyond the university, as well as campus political campaigns, such as coordinating campus labour unions. 

The group also includes VP University Affairs Kerry Yang. Yang is responsible for advocating on behalf of students to McGill administration. He primarily focuses on advocating for underrepresented groups at McGill, doing so by supporting the Black Affairs, Francophone Affairs, and Indigenous Affairs portfolios (amongst others), and by promoting the Menstrual Hygiene Project. Finally, the VP Student Life, Hassanatou Koulibaly, serves as the coordinator between the SSMU Council and student-run clubs and organizations. Koulibaly also focuses on issues such as mental health services, doing so by meeting weekly with the Mental Health Commissioner and by honouring the SSMU Mental Health Policy and Plan. 

How Do I Get Involved?

The easiest way to get involved is through General Assemblies (GAs). These are biannual meetings held near the start of each semester where students can propose motions to implement change on campus. To propose a motion, students must gather the signatures of at least 100 students or four Counsellors and submit the proposal. Crucially, any proposed motion cannot contain more than 50 per cent of signatures from the same faculty, and must be submitted at least two weeks before the day of the Assembly. This fall’s GA will be held on Monday, September 26, at 6:00 PM. In addition, students can also participate in Special General Assemblies. Unlike standard GAs, Special GAs are not pre-scheduled. They can occur per request, such as when 200 students or eight Councillors propose a motion. 

Hear from the executives themselves:

VP External Val Mansy:

Priorities: “This year, various advocacy priorities have started to take shape, and the External Affairs team will be there to support them. Groups have started organizing around climate justice, housing, and Indigenous sovereignty.”

Expected Difficulties: “La mission impossible for the year is to try to accomplish all the mandates that the student body has given to the External Affairs (EA) office. The EA mandate list is a long one. There are so many exciting projects that we will be working on, including: an activist bootcamp, an accessibility-focused week, many workshops and more!”

Additional Comments: “To know more, read the External Affairs reports to Legislative Council or follow us on social media: @ssmu_ea on Instagram, @ssmuea on Facebook, @SSMUExternal on Twitter.”

VP Student Life Hassanatou Koulibaly:

Priorities: “One of my main priorities this year is reinvigorating extracurricular activities on campus and providing club participants with the support they need to fulfil their initiatives and events.  My first way of doing so is planning Activities Night on the lower campus and bringing back the culture around the club fair for both students who were able to experience a vibrant student life on campus and those who have yet to discover the number of ways to get involved throughout your university career. My support is not limited to exposure but also in facilitating the relationship amongst student group execs by hosting network sessions along with club workshops as well as strengthening the relationship with SSMU through a centralized portal that addresses various student group processes in a simplified way.” 

Expected Difficulties: “A difficulty I imagine coming my way is achieving both internal and external change that I wish to implement in a balanced manner. Though I came into the position with various goals with the perspective of someone who had an external relationship with SSMU, now being a part of the organization there are many inner procedures that I also wish to work on for the longevity of the Society that I may not have been previously exposed to. I hope to overcome this by keeping in mind the students and providing many opportunities for feedback and accountability in serving students and actually addressing their needs whether this be through coffee hours or open sessions.”

Additional Comments: “I am always open to hearing how I can best serve the student body and I encourage feedback as I work on my various initiatives.”

The post Understanding SSMU appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Occupiers set up in the lobby of the Arts Building, crowded with tents, pamphlets, and posters. “Don’t mourn, organize,” a banner reminds passers-by; another one reads “Community Control, Not Oil, Not Coal.” Throughout the first week of the occupation, Divest McGill held a number of events centred around democratization and divestment. On March 14, the group announced their intention to continue the occupation for another week. As of March 18, the Arts Building is still occupied by Divest activists; the occupation expanded to the Y-intersection on March 17, where Divest organizers platformed Floor Fellows in their announcement of their strike.

The events which Divest hosted included a number of community discussions and educational initiatives. One such event was the March 9 discussion on anarchism – attendees spoke about what anarchism meant to them, then briefly went over early anarchist history. Additionally, attendees discussed how to get involved with mutual aid initiatives and direct action.

Democratize McGill mobilization and community building session

The Wednesday evening session began where the afternoon session concluded: by continuing to flesh out the group’s frustrations over McGill’s colonial past. Leading with an anecdote over how Canada is “not a country” (for it has “no culture,” “no language” – it is all stolen Indigenous land), the occupiers transitioned into discussing three instances where the university had historically wronged various Indigenous groups. 

First, the Divest occupiers discussed James McGill’s enslavement of two Indigenous people. McGill, who famously donated the land upon which the university that bears his name stands upon, continues to have a statue on the campus grounds – much to the occupiers’ frustration. Though a petition to remove McGill’s statue has amassed over 5,000 signatures and McGill University has said they’ll make an official decision by the end of the bicentennial year, there remains ambiguity over what such a timeline would look like. 

Second, the group spoke on McGill University’s historic misuse of Native Indigenous funds. Pointing to the university’s early financial difficulties “where instructors could not be compensated and resources… were scarce,” the group explained how the institution was forced to turn to the Canadian government in the 1860s to save itself from bankruptcy; receiving a lifeline, the Province of Canada withdrew $40,000 from the General Indian Trust Fund, loaning the money to McGill. Crucially, the deal was only secured following a $8,000 down payment from the university – a sum that was acquired via a fund allocated to the Six Nations of the Grand River. While McGill alleges to have settled their debt with the Quebec government in 1873, the original $8,000 used to secure the loan was never returned to the Indigenous groups from which it was taken. The occupiers went on to explain how the unpaid $8,000 loan – when accounting for interest – would be worth an estimated $1.7 billion today.   

The Divest occupiers concluded the first half of the session by discussing the controversy surrounding McGill’s New Vic project. The $700 million construction project, which plans to transform the old Royal Victoria Hospital site into new classrooms, sparked controversy when the Kahnistensera Mohawk Mothers sued McGill over the plans. The Kahnistensera Mohawk Mothers, who take issue with the building site, seek to stop the renovation plans until “a thorough investigation of the grounds is carried out for searching unmarked graves of individuals unlawfully experimented upon.” The injunction is, as of writing, still ongoing.

Switching to a more informal second half of the event, the conversation transitioned to discussing how the Divest occupiers could work to further democratize the university. Dividing into break out groups, the occupiers went on to discuss topics ranging from endowment justice, to democratizing classrooms, to the democratization of university resources. 

Perhaps the most constructive break out group discussion was that on how to further democratize the university classroom. The popcorn style discussion brought forth a variety of suggestions on how to improve McGill’s current academic policies. Beginning with grading, the group was in consensus that the exam-centric style of grading currently embraced by the western world needed an overhaul. The occupiers’ message was clear: exams did not often reflect the learning taking place by students in the classroom. In its place, the group’s solutions ranged from having a student’s best few grades from the semester being taken, to a system where grades were awarded in correlation to a student’s effort level. 

Finally, another popular topic of conversation was that on endowment justice. Beginning with discussions over McGill’s increasingly unaffordable international tuition fees (which reached $56,544 this academic year), the group shared concerns over how their tuition was being spent. The occupiers agreed that they wanted more student consultation in matters concerning university spending. One such instance discussed by the occupiers was McGill’s spending in the filming of the “Made by McGill” advertising campaign. Unsurprisingly, the campaign total spend – which cost the university $1,217,632 – raised student eyebrows. Not only did the occupiers allege that McGill spent far too much on the campaign, they questioned whether the university could have more effectively spent the money, citing a lack of university spending on OSD resources. The group agreed that a solution to this would be the establishment of community controlled resources. 

Running over the intended 9 p.m. end time, the session concluded with the handing out of pro-Divest pamphlets, before a movie was shown to the occupiers sleeping the night in the Arts building.   

Land back, McGill, the Royal Vic, and the kanien’kehá:ka kahnistensera

A Thursday afternoon event likewise explored the importance of decolonizing McGill, with one of the kanien’kehá:ka kahnistensera (Mohawk mothers) leading a discussion on the Land Back movement. As mentioned in the community-building session, McGill was spared from bankruptcy by drawing a loan from the General Indian Trust Fund – “McGill would not exist without our money. McGill has never repaid us,” the speaker said. She also highlighted McGill’s complicity in state-sponsored violence against Indigenous communities: McGill got its charter from Britain, making the school part of Britain’s colonial project. Furthermore, she pointed out that Canada should be considered a corporation or a colony as it is not a country. Although “Canada thinks it became a real country when it got a flag and its own anthem in 1967,” it was founded on stolen land.

The MK Ultra project – a series of twisted psychological experiments funded by the CIA and Canadian government, in part conducted at the Allan Memorial Institute – was also pointed to as an example of the school’s violent past. McGill’s sordid history is often hidden from the Indigenous communities of what is currently Montreal; for this reason, attendees were encouraged to aid in research about McGill’s past conducted by the kanien’kehá:ka kahnistensera. 

Attempting to decolonize McGill cannot undo the harm that the school and state have already inflicted – “the destruction of our land, our waters, our people, how do you fix that?” she asked. Nonetheless, decolonization goes hand-in-hand with divestment: in Mohawk culture, unborn children are considered owners of the land – mothers are thus tasked with taking care of the land for them. This idea is crucial to combating climate change: “True climate justice means solidarity means divestment & decolonization,” the organization tweeted about the event.

University Response

According to a March 11 Twitter thread on the Divest McGill account, a “loud siren noise” was played within the Arts Building lobby to drive out occupiers. “We are under the impression that this is the act of one, angry staff member [sic.],” the thread continued. However, a statement provided to the Daily by the Media Relations Office (MRO) claimed that the noise “was caused by an alarm that was accidently [sic.] triggered.” 

The MRO statement also said that the University has “shown leadership in sustainability and climate activities,” pointing to the Committee to Advise on Matters of Social Responsibility (CAMSR), and the University’s “investments in clean technologies, renewable energy, pollution prevention, and other low-carbon funds,” as proof of McGill’s commitment to sustainability. In December 2019, CAMSR recommended decarbonization rather than divestment – per the MRO statement, “McGill is well on its way to meeting the […] goal of a 33 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2025.” Additionally, the school has reduced the carbon emissions of its public equity endowment portfolio by 20 per cent – the statement claims that this reduction “is already more than could have been accomplished by divesting from fossil fuel industry holdings alone.” However, economists have pointed out that part of the benefit of divestment is the social and political stigmatization of the fossil fuel industry, expanding divestment’s impact beyond a university’s carbon footprint. The statement does not acknowledge McGill’s investment in companies complicit in human rights violations, from which Divest McGill also encourages divestment.

Additionally, the Daily reached out to Security Services to request the Operating Procedures for the Arts Building along with a copy of security logs for the week of March 7; Security Services declined to provide these documents, explaining that they are “confidential and for internal use only.” However, the Operating Procedures Regarding Demonstrations, Protests and Occupations on McGill University Campuses are available on the Secretariat’s website – these procedures clarify that “University representatives will […] issue a clear warning” that disciplinary action will be taken if occupiers and demonstrators have transgressed the parameters outlined in the Procedures.

The post “Community Control, Not Oil, Not Coal” appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Elected President for the 2021–2022 academic year on April 19, 2021, Darshan Daryanani proved the overwhelming favourite in the polls, winning by a comfortable 19.6 per cent of the vote. However, his Presidency took an unexpected turn following his leave of absence beginning on September 23, 2021.

Since then, speculation behind Daryanani’s leave has been suppressed by his fellow executives’ silence – VP Internal Sarah Paulin even went as far as instructing staff to “not respond” to communications from student run media outlets. 

In addition to articulating his plans to return as President, Daryanani also announced his commitment to begin re-serving as the “SSMU Representative to the McGill Senate,” as the SSMU Representative to “the McGill Board of Governors,” and on “the respective committees to which [he] was appointed.” The 2021–2022 SSMU President concluded his letter by indicating his eagerness “to complet[e] my mandate as President” and his desire to “ensure the platform, upon which I ran my campaign and for which I was elected, is implemented.” 

The Daily reached out to Daryanani and SSMU’s Communications Coordinator for further comment on his return and on criticism levied against his absence. They did not respond to the request.

If you have tips regarding Daryanani’s leave of absence or return, please email news@mcgilldaily.com.

Note: As Illustrations Editor Eve Cable is employed by SSMU, she did not have a role in the research or production of this article.

A previous edition of this article implied that Daryanani would be replacing VP University Affairs Claire Downie in her position on McGill’s Senate. In fact, the VP University Affairs holds a position on Senate regardless of the President’s absence. The Daily regrets this error.

The post SSMU President Darshan Daryanani Makes Long-Awaited Return appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The motion, Regarding Amendments to the Internal Regulations of Student Groups, formally seeks to modify certain internal regulations of student groups in order to “improve the ability of [University] affiliated political campaigns to access resources of the society.” Currently, while Full-Status Clubs and Affiliated Political Campaigns – such as Divest McGill and the McGill Student Union Democratization Initiative – receive support from the Society, they differ in extent. For example, while clubs have up to 15 hours per week of free rooms available for booking in the University Centre, and eight hours free for kiosk/tabling, Affiliated Political Campaigns do not. This in turn has sparked complaints by various campaigns over their ability to adequately “host events, conduct meetings, and perform their activities as mandated by the Membership.” Notably, these Campaigns had previously tried to resolve these problems by contacting the VP External, though they allege that he failed to respond to issues “in a timely manner.” 

Seeking to correct this perceived inequity, the presented amendments written by Buraga would enable Affiliated Political Campaigns to receive financial and non-financial resources from the SSMU in “a more timely manner” and would “allow for greater democratic oversight on how these resources are allocated.” The motion was moved by Arts Representative Yara Coussa before being seconded by Arts Representative Ghania Javed, and was thus discussed in the November 25 meeting.

As discussion around the motion began, VP Finance Éric Sader quickly interjected: “I’m honestly incredibly disappointed in this motion” began Sader. “[T]he fact that [the motion is] clearly also coming originally from a member of the gallery here, Bryan Buraga, who was previously President and has such a lack of understanding of governance procedures […] is honestly baffling,” he continued. VP External Sacha Delouvrier then jumped in, echoing Sader’s comments and expressing his displeasure in the motion: “At the end of the day, the Society is a not-for-profit organization, something I would expect a past President to understand.” 

Wanting a chance to personally follow up, Buraga penned a response to the comments, reaching out to the Legislative Council shortly after the meeting. In a letter addressed to all of the councillors and accessed by the Daily, the 2019-2020 SSMU President shared his thoughts on the comments: “We all have a desire to improve and further the interests of the student body,” began Buraga, before transitioning to explain that he felt “several members of the Legislative Council [had] crossed the line.” He detailed how he feels that he was “subjected to several instances of insinuations, putdowns, and character attacks” before expressing his “disappointment” in the matter. “This is unacceptable, and I cannot, in good conscience, keep telling students that the Legislative Council is a safe forum where students can have their concerns heard and ameliorated […] Should these behaviours continue, it continues to the detriment of the student body that we serve.”   

Buraga also presented the issue in front of the SSMU Judicial Board. Requesting that the board “order Vice-Presidents Sader and Delouvrier not to make personal attacks against any member” at future meetings of the Legislative Council, the petitioners also sought the following additional remedies to the matter: 

1) “Petitioners request that the Judicial Board declare that members who are not members of the Legislative Council have the right at meetings of the Council not to be subject to personal attacks and not to have their motives questioned.”

2) “Petitioners request that the Judicial Board declare that the Speaker has a duty to protect the rights of all members and student groups at meetings of the Legislative Council, including by promptly and properly applying established disciplinary procedures when anyone present violates those rights.”

3) “Petitioners request that the Judicial Board order the Speaker to protect the rights of all members at all future meetings of the Legislative Council, including by promptly and properly applying established disciplinary procedures when anyone present violates those rights.”

4) “Petitioners request that the Judicial Board order the Speaker to allow anyone present at a meeting of the Legislative Council to respond to a Request for Information that is directed to them by the person who made it or is referred to them by the person it is directed to.”

The Daily reached out to Buraga for further comment on the matter; he remains “quite confident that the changes will happen” despite the appeal. The motion will be further discussed at the next Legislative Council meeting scheduled to be held on January 20.

A previous edition of this article was titled “Tension as Buraga, Sader spar over Motion regarding SSMU support for University Affiliated Campaigns.” This title did not appropriately reflect the contents of the article and has been corrected. Additionally, a quote referring to the mover and seconder of the motion was included without being followed by a response from the people concerned. The article was also updated on January 27 to remove a paragraph referencing a quote from the Judicial Board, when the board was in fact never interviewed. The Daily regrets these errors.

The post Buraga files Judicial Board Petition appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The Candidates

Following an upset win that made her Montreal’s first ever elected female Mayor in 2017, Valérie Plante sought re-election for the first time. Plante had pulled off what many considered the improbable by defeating then incumbent Denis Coderre, despite trailing by as many as 14 percentage points early in the campaign. An activist turned politician, Plante started her career fighting against tuition hikes and hydraulic fracking before becoming Montreal City Councillor for Sainte-Marie and eventually Mayor. Plante serves as the leader of Projet Montréal.

Ensemble Montréal candidate Denis Coderre sought to become Montreal’s Mayor by challenging Valérie Plante for the second time. Coderre served as a Liberal Member of Canadian Parliament for Bourassa from 1997 to 2013 (where he briefly served as Immigration Minister), before launching a successful bid for Montreal’s top job in 2013. Serving as Mayor until 2017, Coderre lost re-election to Plante. By seeking a second term, Coderre looked to become the first Montreal Mayor in almost 50 years to win non-consecutive terms. Coderre serves as the leader of Ensemble Montréal.   

The youngest of the three frontrunners, Balarama Holness is a professional football player turned lawyer and political activist. Serving as leader of Mouvement Montréal, Holness played in the Canadian Football League for five years. Following retirement, he pursued a legal career, recently graduating from McGill University’s Faculty of Law. In 2017, while studying at McGill, he ran for borough mayor of Montréal-Nord (as a member of Plante’s Projet Montréal), losing to Ensemble Montréal’s Christine Black. If elected, Holness would have become Montreal’s first Mayor of colour.

The Economy 

Coderre has claimed he is  the “only party leader capable of bringing spending under control.” His economic plan uses a combination of price controls and relief funds to reduce municipal spending and provide support for small businesses. 

Ensemble Montréal, as reiterated by Coderre during Montréal’s English debate, cites a commitment to “not increase taxes above inflation” while also “capping… [the] increase… [of property taxes to] 2% for [2022].” Coderre and his team also pledged, if elected, to conduct an audit of all the city’s expenses in order “to reduce the debt affecting the metropolis.” Finally, Ensemble Montréal plans on setting aside $50 million for merchants’ associations and community groups. 

Leveraging her past two years as Mayor during the pandemic, Plante’s economic plan builds on her already implemented recovery measures – measures that froze the property tax rate and cut city spending throughout COVID-19. 

Projet Montréal now aims to continue recovery efforts by aligning property tax increases with the rate of inflation. Plante said her party will invest in the city, pledging an additional $16.7 million in funding to The Village, doubling its support to the homeless, and promising to spend $1 million on helping neighbourhood cinemas and artist studios if re-elected. 

Holness, comparatively, is pushing for a complete legal reimagination of Montreal, advocating it to receive “city-state status”; he argues that the move would grant the city more taxation powers. Mouvement Montréal is also proposing that Ville-Marie have its own borough mayor to “help better manage downtown.” Finally, Holness is advocating for the creation of “ tax exemption zones in [struggling] commercial sectors,” such as LaSalle. 

Policing 

Targeting a complete overhaul of the current system, Holness’ Mouvement Montréal envisions a plan where decreased poverty, increased infrastructure, and increased police training decreases crime.

“We are about mixed squadrons, we are about helping community organizations, better training for police, de-escalation,” said Holness in an October mayoral debate.  “There’s this idea that we can invest in firearms and police to solve these crimes and that is not the correct solution.” As part of his plan, Holness aims to mandate yearly training for all police officers, including specialization training for incidents of domestic violence. Mouvement Montréal also aims to reallocate some funding from the SPVM towards affordable housing and health services. 

Accusing both Holness and Plante of being “for defunding the police,” Coderre opposes Holness, arguing for an increased police force in favour of community outreach programs. 

To do so, Coderre plans on hiring 250 more police officers if elected, while also promising to double the number of psychosocial emergency and mobile reference support teams available in the city. His platform also pledges to purchase body cameras for all police officers within the first 100 days of their hire. Finally, Ensemble Montréal plans on improving lighting in public places like parks, while adding more security cameras at metro stations — where Coderre claims hate crimes are likely to occur. 

Incumbent Valérie Plante aims to strengthen community ties with police officers. Plante’s platform would require officers to serve in the same neighbourhood for at least three years, claiming that “community ties are a critical crime prevention tool.” Projet Montréal then plans to invest $5 million annually to support community organizations that “work in the prevention of violence and crime among young people and in urban safety.” Plante also supports equipping Montréal’s police officers with body cameras by 2022, and supports the creation of shelters for women who “are victims of violence.”

Housing 

Projet Montréal builds on their previous housing plan, advocating for what they claim is the continued success of the Montréal housing market. By using land already owned by Montreal — such as the former hippodrome, Louvain Est, and surplus land belonging to the federal government — Plante calls for the creation of 60,000 long term affordable housing units, including an additional 2,000 for students within 10 years; Projet Montréal defines “affordable” as costing 10 per cent below market price. Plante’s Projet Montréal also plans on renewing the Réflexe Montréal housing agreement, as well as allocating $100 million over 10 years towards acquiring land for social housing purposes. 

Expressing his belief that “Housing is a fundamental right,” Holness has spent the campaign lamenting “the Plante administration [for taking] 3.5 years to address the housing crisis.”

Mouvement Montréal also plans to build new affordable homes, to the tune of 30,000 (though the timeline has yet to be announced) while also proposing a provincial and federal tax credit for contractors that build affordable rental homes. A Holness administration would vow to close the loophole on the 20-20-20 bylaw. Finally, he plans on steadily increasing the city’s housing budget by  2 per cent each year between 2021 and 2025.

Coderre has attacked Plante’s 20-20-20 bylaw, suggesting that it is chasing developers away. He has instead proposed a plan to increase affordable housing by over 10,000 over the next four years. Ensemble Montréal, if elected, would also encourage the conversion of disused office towers to residential use, and invest $25 million in a social and community housing investment fund. Curtially, Denis Coderre is the only leading candidate that seeks to outright abolish the 20-20-20 bylaw; Plante stands by the bylaw while Holness seeks to close perceived loopholes. 

The French Language 

Balarama Holness is the only leading candidate that seeks to recognize Montreal as bilingual. The Mouvement Montréal plan includes the immediate translation of all government documents, reports, and publicly accessible information into both French and English languages. Holness also opposes Bill-96. 

Denis Coderre, during the French debate on October 21, deemed Holness’ bilingual proposal not acceptable. He supports Bill-96. 

Valérie Plante joins Coderre’s positions on both Bill-96 and Holness’ bilingual proposal, expressing her belief that Montréalers are “united by the French language.”

The Environment 

Ensemble Montréal, Projet Montréal, and Mouvement Montréal all pledge to continue combat climate change.

In a statement released to the general public, Coderre announced that “to join in the climate transition, Montrealers will have the wholehearted support of the Coderre-Gelly administration, who will fully assume its role in achieving carbon neutrality by 2045.” They also pledge to continue developing ecological urban farming on farmland in the West End and create neighbourhood markets in disadvantaged areas.

Similarly, Holness also plans for Montréal’s to achieve net neutrality by 2050 — the target date set by the Canadian government. He also vows to establish an Independent Advisory Council on Climate Justice to advise the Mayor on environmental policy, and to help with the implementation of the city’s climate plan.  

Valérie Plante’s Projet Montréal also envisions Montréal achieving net neutrality by 2050. Additionally, she plans on increasing the number of electric buses and city vehicles, and planting 500,000 trees by 2030.

The post Montreal’s Deadlocked Mayoral Race appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Efforts by McGill’s student body to ramp up protective measures against the raging pandemic have been ongoing for sometime now: an earlier motion was presented to the Senate Steering Committee at its September 2021 meeting which, if passed, would have required the Senate to “urge the implementation of a proof of vaccination against COVID-19 requirement for all students, faculty and staff seeking access to the McGill classrooms, libraries, laboratories, and indoor research or study spaces.” Despite these  appeals, McGill has not updated their policies; the University’s website affirms their commitment to no vaccine mandates of any kind, referencing worries about their ability to “legally require [mandates] in the Québec context” without government intervention. 

The Senate’s first resolution, which advocates for a proof of vaccine requirement, serves as the accumulation of months of student and faculty pleas for more protection against a virus that has claimed the lives of more than 28,000 Canadians to date. The passed resolution looks to an August 16 letter addressed to Principal Suzanne Fortier, Provost Christopher Manfredi, and Chair of McGill’s Board of Governors Ram Panda, where members of the Faculty of Law evaluate the legality of a vaccine mandate. In their August 23 letter, faculty members explain that “experts in law […] have long noted that requiring proof of vaccination is not the same as imposing an obligation to get a vaccine.” They conclude that a proof of vaccine requirement should simply be considered an “internal regulation – like requiring protective clothing when working in a university lab,” that aims to advance the safety of students and staff on McGill’s campus. The group also found that McGill’s anti-mandate commitment renders the institution susceptible to legal claims that “the present policy discriminates against disabled students, staff and faculty,” as they argue a lack of mandate discriminates against those with a disability contrary to Article 10 of the Québec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.

The first resolution also broadly advances the Senate’s earlier attempt to urge further public health measures – the Senate Steering Committee did not include the prior motion on its agenda since some elements of the proposed resolution “did not fall within Senate’s jurisdiction,” according to writing in the second motion. Notably, the first motion’s appendix included recommendations to implement the following provisions:

1.  Establish daily COVID-19 vaccination sites on campus and allow vaccination registration on campus until demand wanes.

2.  Establish SARS-CoV-2 testing sites on campus and implement a routine testing program to identify asymptomatic cases

3. Provide short and long-term accommodations for all who are at risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes due to pre-existing health conditions, including those who are immunocompromised or have other significant health concerns and those who live with family members at increased risk for these reasons

4.  Ensure that all individuals remain masked in McGill classrooms, libraries, laboratories, and indoor research or study spaces and that instructors remain masked while teaching to prevent transmission within the classroom. 

5.  Improve ventilation sufficiently in ALL classroom spaces to meet occupational health guidelines, including those spaces without mechanical ventilation. 

6. Implement physical distancing in classrooms and density maximums in classrooms until evidence demonstrates that the epidemiologic situation in Quebec is stable.

7. Ensure that classes are notified if anyone who attended the class tests positive for SARS-CoV-2 so that individuals can monitor themselves for symptoms and minimize the potential that they could transmit to their families.

8. Increase transparency of the reporting about SARS-CoV-2 positive tests, COVID-19 symptoms, and COVID-19 vaccination rates by implementing a comprehensive dashboard that tracks these metrics twice weekly and making these data available publicly online.

9. Respect the right of faculty members in collaboration with their chairs/directors to make decisions about how they teach, including the mode of instruction.

While the passed resolution did not name specific requests, it still advocates for measures beyond those currently in place to help prevent the spread of COVID-19.  The newly created committee will meet weekly throughout the 2021-2022 academic year, aiming to work with “the University’s senior administration on COVID related decisions” like “academic planning,” advising members on “how such decisions can be most effectively communicated and implemented.” The committee will consist of: The Associate Provost (Teaching and Academic Programs) (who will serve as Co-chair); The Associate Provost (Equity and Academic Policies) (who will serve as Co-chair); The Director of McGill’s Teaching and Learning services (TLS); and six student Senators. The Advisory Committee encourages “feedback on matters from members of the McGill community” and will “respond to [any feedback] through the University Senate.”

The passage of this motion is part of SSMU’s advocacy for COVID-19 safety which dates from before the beginning of this semester. The Daily will continue to cover SSMU’s dealings with administration as the story unfolds.

If you have safety concerns or a COVID-19 related tip, please contact news@mcgilldaily.com.

The post McGill Senate Advocates for More COVID-19 Regulations appeared first on The McGill Daily.