Sam Reynolds / McGill TribuneSSMU’s Winter General Assembly struggled to maintain quorum on Feb. 1, barely reaching the 100 undergraduates needed to render votes binding. Two motions were voted on as a binding assembly, while the remaining were voted on as a consultative body.
A motion from the floor submitted by former SSMU President Zach Newburgh and U2 political science student Brendan Steven sought to amend the agenda to include a vote to reinstate SSMU’s Judicial Board. Despite a second vote and discussion from the floor, the motion was defeated and was not added to the agenda. At the time of the GA, SSMU had suspended the Judicial Board’s activities, which included hearing Newburgh and Steven’s case regarding the fall referenda. The Judicial Board was reinstated at a SSMU council meeting the following day.
After a report from each SSMU executive on developments in their portfolio, the assembly proceeded to vote on the selection of SSMU’s financial auditor, which passed with quorum.
The next motion looked to gain student support behind the establishment of a student-run café in the Shatner Building, an endeavour which has been a cornerstone of Shyam Patel’s tenure as VP Finance and Operations of SSMU.
When asked about the release of a business plan for the project, Patel promised that one would be released by the end of his term.
Molly Swain, a U1 women’s studies student, spoke in favour of the student-run café.
“I think the time is not only nigh, but also extremely right for this to happen,” Swain said. “We’re seeing a general rollback in terms of student-run spaces on campus without being consulted about it, so I think this is really a great initiative and this is the time we should be putting this together.”
The motion passed overwhelmingly.
A motion moved by Clubs and Services representative Adam Winer aimed to have SSMU work to limit how extensively corporations are involved in McGill’s governance, teaching, and research, particularly with regards to companies known to have committed ethical and environmental injustices.
“This motion does not attempt to lay out an overall systematic theory for what constitutes corporate influence and what does not,” Winer said in response to a question on how the motion would evaluate inappropriate pressure from industry on McGill research. “I think that we can see certain very egregious cases of inappropriate corporate influence over the research process at McGill and it’s those cases which this motion seeks to cover.”
The assembly was divided on the implications of the motion, with some speakers highlighting the benefits of corporate involvement at McGill in terms of academic funding and job prospects, while others denounced associations between McGill and corporations known to have committed social injustices.
“Given [that] SSMU’s already [opposed to] tuition increases and this resolution would seek to in some way lessen corporate investments, I’m just curious, where is the money going to come from?” Steven asked.
“Most students come to university to get a good education … and ultimately graduate and hopefully get a job. Don’t you find that this resolution will have a major impact on McGill University to have partnerships with outside corporations so that we can allow graduates to actually get jobs, especially in the current economic climate?” Alexandre Meterissian, a U3 political science student, asked.
Although it will not be considered binding due to the loss of quorum, the motion was passed by the assembly.
“We always draw the line where people are being hurt, where the environment is being destroyed, and where there are unfair corporate practices,” a gallery member, who didn’t identify himself before speaking, said. “It doesn’t matter how many jobs they’re going to give, how much money they’re going to give your department. We cannot allow corporations that commit acts like that against the communities that they affect without drawing lines.”
