Michael Paolucci / Organization

During the March 1 SSMU Council meeting, SSMU’s Board of Directors (BoD) ratified the Judicial Board (J-Board) ruling that invalidated the results of QPIRG’s fall referendum question. In a report released on Feb. 14, the J-Board declared the question to be unconstitutional because it dealt with two separate issues.

The BoD’s ratification of the J-Board decision is a step recently implemented to bring the J-Board into compliance with Quebec law, which requires the BoD to have the highest level of authority in the organization.  

Implementing this step requires changes to the SSMU constitution, which have to be approved by the student body during the upcoming referendum period. However, an agreement made at the Feb. 9 Council meeting requires the board to act in the spirit of these recommendations. This also means that, as specified on the upcoming referendum question, the BoD can only overturn a J-Board decision by a 4/5 majority. 

Although the power for ratification ultimately lay with the BoD, SSMU Legislative Council first voted on a recommendation on the subject to submit to the BoD. Debate at council centred on the council’s duty to the student body and to the democratic framework of the organization. 

“[If we ratify this decision] how can we instil students with a sense of confidence that our democratic processes like referenda are actually safeguarded?” Adam Winer, Clubs and Services representative, said. 

“Those democratic processes must take place within a framework that must be honoured, and when that framework is not honoured we need to step in … we have these checks and balances for a reason,” Joshua Fagen, Interim Arts representative, said. 

Rebecca Yu, U2 political science and history, presented a letter signed by 28 students, which pointed to a potential conflict of interest for J-Board Justice Raphael Szajnfarber, who acted as a spokesperson for Hillel Ottawa in 2008, during a complaint against Ontario Public Interest Research Group (OPIRG).  

Education Councillor Kady Paterson responded that the J-Board investigated the Justice’s potential conflict of interest before deciding that it would not interfere with his position in the case. 

The letter also questioned the terminology of the ruling, saying that the ruling depended on the concept of a “reasonably informed average voter,” a term that the J-Board did not adequately define. 

“[The] J-Board is not a part of student democracy at McGill,” the letter states. “It should not have the power to decide how most students understand referendum questions or anything else, especially without providing a framework to support such a decision.”

Gallery member Brendan Steven, U2 political science and Canadian studies, was concerned by this attitude towards the J-Board. 

“Democracy isn’t just about voting on any question, and not any question put to a mass of people constitutes a referendum,” Steven said. “It’s just very problematic to suggest that having a system of due process … somehow harms the democracy of SSMU [when] it’s an essential part of what democracy is.”

The ratification passed with seven votes in favour, one against, and four abstentions.  

In other business, Council passed several motions that were passed as recommendations at the last SSMU General Assembly. These included a motion to restructure SSMU frosh to make it a “safe space for all students” and a motion declaring SSMU’s opposition to corporate influence at McGill.  

Council also passed a motion denouncing Bill C-10, a bill that introduces new measures against crime in Canada. SSMU will denounce the bill to the university’s Member of Parliament Marc Garneau, the Minister of Justice, and engage in a media campaign against the bill.