The policies and ethics of the Canadian mining industry were at the forefront of a Nov. 21 debate co-hosted by McGill’s Research Group Investigating Canadian Mining in Latin America (MICLA), McGill’s chapter of Journalists for Human Rights, and McGill’s chapter of Amnesty International.

Panelists debated Canada’s current policy of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)—an expectation that companies take their own measures to ensure ethical operations and maintain social and environmental sustainability—and its effectiveness as a form of voluntary regulation.

Panelist John McKay, a Liberal Member of Parliament, said he disapproved of the amibuity of current policy and argued that enforcement is the ideal method to ensure the CSR’s standards of responsibility are met.

“We don’t really have a national consensus as to how Canada should enforce compliance with these norms,” McKay said. “I think your optimum choice is actually legislation.”

McKay referenced his 2009 private members bill, C-300, which would have taken a step in legislating extractive industry standards for Canadian companies. The bill, which did not become law, would have mandated mining companies to adhere to human rights standards internationally.

Normand Champigny, president of Quebec-based Donner Metals, expressed a different view, saying that the policy has been effective in developing standards, including involvement of mining companies with local communities, creating job opportunities, and developing areas.

“Workers are trained, safety record is good, and you will find that it’s an opportunity for training and education,” Champigny said. “There are ripple effects in the economy which are significant that would not exist otherwise if you didn’t have this development.”

Grahame Russell, co-director of Rights Action, said the policy is not effective at getting mining corporations to take responsibility because companies favour profit over people.

“There’s no doubt that mining is good—mainly for the mining companies, for the investors, the shareholders, the developers,” said Russell. “What’s sustainable for these companies is their profits.”

Some attendees of the event also expressed their opinion on the policy. Steven Schnoor, activist and professor of communication studies at Concordia University, said he opposed the CSR policy as well.

“There’s no transparency in these [CSR] initiatives,” Schnoor said. “They’re totally discretionary, which means a company can apply them as best they see fit […] I quite believe that CSR is little more than a justification for business as usual, and in that regard, I think it’s actually a step backwards. It’s a dangerous tool of deception.”

Looking to the future of extractive industries

Panelists also discussed their views on the future of sustainable development, extraction, and Canada’s place in the mining industry.

Jamie Kneen, Communications and Outreach Coordinator of MiningWatch Canada, spoke in favour of sustainable development and about his concern for mining’s potentially harmful side effects.

“We need to be collectively looking at what happens beyond economic growth,” he said, “Because we live in a finite world, because we have used up an awful lot of our [resources].”

Jim Cooney, McGill professor at the Institute for International Development Studies, said a sustainable future of the mining industry is possible if preventative measures are taken now. These include “no-go zones,” which would be off limits to mine due to potential environmental or social risk, and the development of a sustainable human progress index, which would integrate economic, socio-cultural, and environmental dimensions of human life equally into governance and decision making.

“You take different dimensions of our human life on this planet—the economic dimensions, the sociocultural dimension, the environmental dimension, the dimension of governance and how we make decisions, and you give equal weight to them, and you engage in a process in which they are constantly integrated and harmonized,” Cooney said.

 “A key element is to use the resources of today with respect for the needs of future generations,” he said.  “Sustainable development is all about a process.”

Rachel Mulbry, U3 Arts and member of MICLA, said the goal of the event was to broaden the conversation around social responsibility in the mining industry.

“It is a pretty polarized issue,” Mulbry said. “It’s very rare that discussions [between NGOs and policy makers] take place in the same location at the same time, which gives a chance to hold people accountable—all of the people on the panel.”

Opposition to the proposed Quebec Charter of Values, as well as the effects of a new class scheduling system were the subjects of debate at McGill Senate’s Nov. 20 meeting.

Resolution on the Charter

Senate unanimously approved a resolution presented by Principal Suzanne Fortier to condemn Bill 60, the Parti Québécois’ recently tabled Quebec Charter of Values.

“While the McGill Senate supports the secular spirit of Bill 60, it strongly objects to the restrictions on the right to wear religious symbols, as described in Article 5 of the draft legislation, which run contrary to the university’s mission and values,” the resolution reads.

While senators expressed support for the spirit of the resolution, some senators called for the university to take a harsher stance.

“I agree with what the Principal said; however, I would encourage you to use stronger language,” Faculty of Medicine representative Daniel Bernard said. “As an educational institution it is our responsibility to educate the people [….] because this sort of bigotry comes from ignorance.”

Faculty of Arts Representative Catherine Lu proposed that McGill stipulate that the university would not enforce any disciplinary measures on those at McGill who did not abide by the law should Bill 60 pass in Quebec’s National Assembly.

The resolution passed in its original form.

Class Schedule Parameters 

Senate also discussed a new system of class scheduling developed in Summer 2013 and to be implemented Fall 2014, which allows the university to control how class schedules are organized. The new system is organized based on scheduling requests by deparments and availability forms that professors would fill out for university approval—rather than giving professors the freedom to choose the hours when they are available to teach.

In the current system, faculty have more flexibility when scheduling their class time,which allows them to properly organize their research hours. However, this created a series of issues related to class scheduling, including increased constrants on student class choices, inequities in departmental schedules, and a misuse of class spaces.

According to Deputy Provost (Studen Life and Learning) Ollivier Dyens, the new scheduling system aims to create a fair system for using instructional time and space, to streamline course requirements by making these courses more available to students, and to enhance students’ accessibility for courses they need to graduate. The system takes into account class durations, weekly meeting patterns, and which faculty the course is in.

In a letter to faculty in October, Dyens explained the schedule’s priorities and the goals they aim to achieve.

“Instructors identified thousands of hours during which they were not available to teach,” Dyens wrote. “This, along with the intricacy of the scheduling process, creates a great strain on the system, especially on students’ ability to graduate on time and on the use of space for teaching, research, and other purposes.”

Some senators expressed concern that the new prioritization of class times over other professorial functions—would limit their ability to organize their own schedules and would ultimately affect their time to conduct research.

“Why has the university chosen to solve a classroom access problem by impinging on the freedom of faculty to organize their time around research, and will it not create a bigger problem among the professoriat than the one it is meant to solve?” asked Faculty of Science representative Timothy Moore.

Lu asked if the university was placing less importance on research.

“Are faculty expected now to do research only after the needs of teaching and service have been fulfilled?” She asked.

Dyens responded that the class scheduling system was organized to maximize time for other university-related activities, but explained that student access to courses had to be prioritized.

The creation of a co-ordinator position  and a public forum on the topic of sexual consent were two measures announced by the administration last Thursday in response to recent criticism of McGill’s policies regarding sexual assault.

Thursday’s announcement follows criticism from members of the McGill community about the administration’s response to an ongoing case involving three former McGill football players charged for allegedly sexually assaulting a former Concordia student in 2011.

When a Nov. 1 article in the Montreal Gazette made the case public, Deputy Provost (Student Life and Learning) Ollivier Dyens told media that McGill did not learn of the incident until May 2013. According to Dyens, McGill did not take action against the students at that time because the incident did not take place in “the McGill context” and was therefore under police jurisdiction.

“We understand […] that our overall response did not meet our community’s expectations,” Dyens’ announcement reads. “We did not fully recognize the effect that such events, even if they take place off campus, can and do have on our student population.”

The three measures Dyens announced last Thursday include hiring a full-time coordinator to spread awareness and develop educational programs about sexual assault, hosting a forum in January about sexual consent, and holding an annual Dean of Students Forum on Safe Space every October.

According to Dyens, January’s forum will serve as the basis for a discussion on ways McGill can improve its resources.

“We want this conversation to help us figure out where exactly are the pressure points, where do we need to act, who needs to do what, and according to what timeline,” he said.

Joey Shea, co-chair of January’s forum and vice-president university affairs for the Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU), said she hopes the forum will engage a diverse range of people.

“[The administration] want[s] it to be a community-wide discussion, not just among specific groups where that discussion has been going on for many years,” Shea said. “[They want it to] include those who may not understand the issues behind sexual assault and the systematic forms of oppression that happen.”

In addition, Dean of Students André Costopoulos will oversee the process for reviewing McGill’s current policies and procedures, which will begin in January.

In particular, Dyens said the administration will look to clarify the definition of “the McGill context” in current policies and generate discussion about the responsibilities of students who serve as ambassadors for the university.

Last Friday, Concordia University’s Centre for Gender Advocacy led the second annual “Take Back the Night” march to oppose gendered violence, which denounced McGill’s initial response to the case. Julia Nadeau, one of the organizers of the march, said McGill’s recent announcement is a positive sign, but it is essential for the university to follow through with tangible results.

“[For example], this case specifically shows that it is necessary to have consent workshops for athletes and sports teams, because sports and athletics can be a hub for hypermasculinity [and] rape culture,” Nadeau said.

While Dyens said the forums could result in initiatives concerning sexual consent for varsity athletes, he said varsity athletes will not be required to attend the forums.

“These issues are of interest and importance to the entire McGill community,”  Dyens said. “This is not about Athletics.”

Camille Tastenhoye, external co-ordinator for the Sexual Assault Centre of the McGill Students’ Society (SACOMSS), said McGill has not shared plans with them for how the centre will work with the new co-ordinator position.

While SACOMSS commended McGill for taking action, Tastenhoye said the administration needs to follow through by creating of a sexual assault policy.

“This needs to be created immediately so that in the future, McGill will have an institutionalized way of responding to these incidences in a way that empowers and protects the survivor,” she said.

Dyens said the creation of such a policy is possible, but the administration will first need to re-evaluate its existing documents.

“If the community says ‘we absolutely need this type of policy’ and we look around and see that we don’t have that type of policy or our current policies do not govern these things, then yes, we’ll sit down and draft such a policy,” Dyens said.