17 minute read
News
#Uprootthesystem
Protestors demand climate justice in Montreal
Advertisement
Zoe Lister News Contributor
On Friday September 24, thousands of protesters filled the parks and streets of Montreal in the first major climate strike since the start of the pandemic. The Global Protest of Climate Justice march, held at 1 pm at the Sir George Etienne-Cartier Monument near Mont Royal, was one of the many #Uprootthesystem strikes that occurred in over 1,500 cities across the world. #Uprootthesystem is a campaign against the climate crisis under the Friday For Future movement, founded by the Swedish teen activist Greta Thunberg in August 2018. It aims to take down the systemic roots of the climate crisis, while cutting emissions and establishing protections for people against the climate crisis. Uprooting the system is a targeted approach to solving the climate crisis that deals with recognizing the intersectionality of the climate crisis. The campaign’s six main points of concern are vaccine injustice, climate refugees, Indigenous peoples, varying climate responsibilities, climate reparations, and social impacts on minority groups.
Montreal’s march was organized by the Racial Justice Collective, Solidarity Across Borders, Pour le futur Mtl, and Coalition étudiante pour un virage environnemental et social. The protest’s Facebook page reported 5.1k people attending the event, with another 16k interested. At the march, protesters held signs with slogans such as “There is no Planet B” and “Our Home is on Fire.” Climate activists gave speeches in front of the monument before joining fellow protestors on a march down Parc Ave. and Sherbrooke St. The Montreal police (SPVM) reported three arrests: one for mischief, one for the assault of a police officer, and another for making threats.
This is not the first large-scale climate protest to happen in Montreal. In 2019, over 500,000 people, led by Thunberg, marched across Montreal demanding climate reform. The question remains, however, of whether environmental protests will be effective in pushing elected officials to create reform remains, attendees claimed. One protester, Sophia Martucci, commented on this: “That’s tough to say. The effects [the protests] have won’t necessarily lead directly to climate action. But I think it’s saying a lot and people will take it into consideration. The more that we talk about it, the more it will come up, and people will think about the effects it is having [on the environment].” When asked what she would say to someone considering attending a protest or getting involved in climate activism, Martucci said, “I think you should definitely go for it. It’s so wonderful to see so many people working together.”
Canada being among the highest per capita emitters in the world increases the sense of urgency to establish reform. Coming in at number ten for overall greenhouse gas output, and warming at twice the global rate, Canada has far to go in terms of reducing emissions.
Some of the promoted goals of the march, outlined on the march’s Facebook page, included carbon neutrality by 2030 in Canada, divesting in fossil fuels, and
Alice Finta | Illustrations Contributor
Your Health & Dental Plan
VIRTUAL HEALTH CARE
Provided by Dialogue
Connect with nurses and physicians via a mobile or web app from anywhere in Canada.
The Dialogue Experience
Consultations via chat, video, or phone Diagnosis Prescription renewals Specialist referrals and lab requests Booking of medical in-person appointments
Get Started with Dialogue Today
Download the Dialogue Health app from the Apple App Store or Google Play Access it online at dialogue.co/signup-studentcare
When to Use Virtual Health Care
Certain conditions: nasal congestion, sore throat, cough, fever, vomiting, diarrhea, minor aches and pains, headaches, migraines, allergies, breastfeeding
Dermatology conditions: skin rashes, hives, or abrasions
Minor emergencies: urinary tract infection, conjunctivitis, or sinusitis
Advice regarding minor injuries: cuts, bites, muscular or joint pains
Sexual health: sexually transmitted infection (STI) information and screening
Questions? 9 am to 5 pm on weekdays www.studentcare.ca
LIVE CHAT AND WEB REQUEST FORM AVAILABLE
securing the rights of climate refugees in international law. Additionally, the protest aimed to focus on how the effects of climate change fall heavily on marginalized groups and developing nations.
Many politicians were in attendance. The Liberal Leader Dominique Anglade, as well as other members of her party, attended Friday’s march. Other politicians took part in climate protests in Alma, Joliette, and Quebec City.
The protest follows the recent federal election, where there were many doubts as to how seriously the government was taking the climate crisis. The leader of the New Democratic Party (NDP), Jagmeet Singh criticized Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as being “an abysmal failure on the climate crisis.” Singh released his own plan to double the Canada Community-Building Fund from the current $2.3 billion spending budget. In Trudeau’s second mandate, he established a plan to hold the government accountable for achieving carbon neutrality by 2050 – 20 years after the year demanded in Friday’s march. Now going into his third term, Trudeau will again be relying on the New Democratic Party, Bloc Québécois and Greens to support his continued plans for climate action and reform.
In 2019 at a United Nations conference, Mayor of Montreal Valérie Plante presented a plan to reduce Montreal’s carbon emissions by 55 per cent by 2030. However, Plante’s plan does not make mention of Line 9, a pipeline running from Montreal to Sarnia, Ontario. The construction of pipelines often involves the removal of groundwater, and pipelines risk spilling thousands of gallons of crude oil – both of these negatively impact the environment.
This past month, HydroQuebec signed a 25-yearcontract with New York State to supply it with clean energy. Beginning in 2025, HydroQuebec will be supplying the state with 1,250 megawatts of hydroelectricity – the equivalent of about one million households’ electricity consumption.
In April 2020, McGill University announced that it would be divesting in high carbon emitting companies such as those in the fossil fuel industry. This came a year after Gregory Mikkelson, a McGill associate professor in the department of Philosophy and School of environment, resigned his tenured position in protest of McGill’s ongoing investment in the fossil fuel industry. Mikkelson was not the only one to speak out against McGill’s investment in fossil fuels. Divest McGill pushed for the university to divest from its investments in the fossil fuel industry.
These combined efforts finally led to success on April 23, 2020. McGill’s Board of Governors approved the Committee to Advise on Matters of Social Responsibility (CAMSR)’s implementation plan to accelerate the responsible decarbonisation of the McGill Investment Pool (MIP). As part of the implementation plan, the university agreed to commit over $75 million of the MIP to renewable energy, clean technologies, energy efficiency, green building, pollution prevention, sustainable water and other low-carbon funds. However, the University is still invested in the CGL Pipeline.
SSMU Council Meeting Debates Community Concerns
Abigal Popple News Editor
On September 23, SSMU held its first Legislative Council meeting of the 2021-2022 Academic Year. Having taken a leave of absence, SSMU President Darshan Daryanani was not present at the meeting. The Daily reached out to SSMU VP Internal, Sarah Paulin, for comment on Daryanani’s absence, but she was unable to disclose any information due to privacy reasons.
During the question period, one councillor brought up SSMU’s recurring claim that students were not consulted about The New Vic Project, a plan to turn McGill’s portion of the Royal Victoria Hospital into a Sustainability Sciences and Public Policy centre. The councillor claimed that the past president as well as the current VP academic of the Science Undergraduate Society (SUS) had participated in consultations regarding the project, and the SSMU, AUS, and EUS presidents were likewise invited to participate in consultation; additionally, videos about the project have been shared in the Dean of Students’ newsletter, and students were given a notice about the August 31 Town Hall two weeks in advance. However, they continued, SSMU has maintained that students were not consulted in the university’s planning process concerning the project.
In response, VP External Sacha Delouvrier clarified that SSMU’s concern lies in insufficient student involvement with the initial task force that was organized to carry out community consultations in December 2015. Delouvrier had asked those who spearheaded the project about SSMU’s involvement in the task force, but did not get any insight: “[they] were incapable of naming anyone who was on that task force, and they didn’t even know what position the SSMU representative on the task force held.” Further, representatives of the New Vic Project were unable to provide a summary of the consultations to Delouvrier. With regards to the August 31 Town Hall, Delouvrier believes that it was “done for show,” to appease students who were pressuring administration to involve students more in the consultation process. Delouvrier was told that the consultation process did not have to involve students whatsoever – the project only needed approval from the Board of Governors to be executed. Delouvrier concluded his comments by expressing disappointment in the complete lack of student consultation on the project prior to its submission to the Société Québécoises des Infrastructures (SQI).
Later, the Council discussed the Motion Regarding Adoption of an Open Letter In Support of the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation. The motion, moved by Daryanani and seconded by Arts Representative Ghania Javed, concerned the publication of an open letter that would ask the university to support the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation. Additionally, the motion specified four demands to be included in the open letter: 1) the cancellation of classes after 12 p.m. on September 30; 2) the intensification of efforts to decolonize the university; 3) the intensification of efforts to “Indigenize” the university; and 4) to participate in the 12 p.m. ceremony “to honour the memories of the victims and survivors of Residential Schools.”
Claire Downie, VP University Affairs, said that the executive committee was not aware of the motion. She explained that SSMU’s Indigenous Equity Researcher had already been working on a statement about Truth and Reconciliation Day with the SSMU Communications Department. She expressed concern that Indigenous Affairs Commissioner Jocelyne Couture was not listed among the entities that had been consulted in the creation of the motion, despite the fact that she is an expert on these matters, per Downie. “I just want to make sure that nonIndigenous voices aren’t speaking over Indigenous voices,” she said.
Other councillors shared Downie’s concern. Faculty of Science Representative Andres Perez Tiniacos said the absence of consultation with Couture is worrying not just because she’s meant to be the highest authority over Indigenous Affairs in SSMU, but also because she is a woman, and this motion was put forth by a male executive. As such, Perez Tiniacos was worried that Daryanani’s motion would constitute “another case of what was previously described in the Daily article [Sexism and Silence in SSMU],” which examines testimony about gender-based discrimination within SSMU structure and culture. Delouvrier echoed these critiques, though he noted that executives have had “difficulty reaching the [Indigenous Affairs Commissioner].” He concluded that “While the intent behind this motion is great, the lack of consultation and debate on it is worrisome.” At the end of the debate period for the motion, Downie reiterated her concerns over the motion’s non-exhaustive consultation, saying: “I don’t believe that this is the appropriate motion to commit to our mandate of solidarity.” Despite these objections, the motion was approved, with 11 executives voting in favour of it, 3 against it, and 7 abstaining.
Later in the meeting, Perez Tiniacos motioned to suspend the standing rules of the meeting in order to have a generative discussion about “Sexism and Silence in SSMU.” However, only 59 per cent of the council voted in favour of the motion, falling short of the three-quarter majority needed to approve it. The meeting ended with executives presenting their reports about what they have accomplished since their election.
Loren Armstrong | The McGill Daily
Elena Lee News Contributor
On Friday September 24, The McGill Institute for Health and Social Policy (IHSP) hosted a panel to discuss the highly contentious issue of vaccine mandates. Titled “University Vaccine Mandates: Looking Beyond the Headlines,” the session was another installment in IHSP’s Policy Talks Webinar series and featured four speakers: Richard Gold, James McGill Professor in the McGill University Faculty of Law and the director of McGill’s Centre for Intellectual Property Policy; Richard Janda, Associate Professor in the McGill University Faculty of Law; Maxwell Smith, Assistant Professor of Bioethics and Health in the Western University Faculty of Health Sciences; and Claire Downie, SSMU’s Vice President of University Affairs. Professor Catherine Hankins of the McGill Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences moderated the conversation. SSMU President Darshan Daryanani had initially been scheduled to participate, but was absent. The panel started by taking stock of the current “varied landscape” of mandatory vaccination policies across educational institutions. Professor Hankins pointed out that over 700 postsecondary institutions in America have some form of mandate, including the “top” 25 schools. Public opinion backs these measures – research by the COVID States Project (a joint effort by Harvard University, Northeastern University, Northwestern University, and Rutgers University) from April/ May and June/July 2021 showed a consistent 66 per cent approval rating for “requiring college students to get a COVID-19 vaccine in order to go back to university.” Although the same research is unavailable in a Canada-specific context, according to Ipsos, Canadians have generally shown high support for the mandates in place for federal employees (80 per cent), healthcare workers (84 per cent), teachers (81per cent), travel (82 per cent), and public indoor spaces (72 per cent). “There really is no contention that universities can bring in proof of vaccination requirements as long as they have the requisite exemptions,” began Professor Gold, who held the floor first. On the contrary, the Ontario Human Rights Commission had released an official statement just two days before the panel to assert that mandating and requiring proof of vaccination was “generally permissible” under the Human Rights Code. Over the course of the pandemic, Gold continued, universities would offer legal justifications for their inadequate policies, be debunked by experts, update their policy, be debunked again, and update and be debunked ad nauseam. To Professor Gold, it was “indicative that there really isn’t a legal barrier.” Professor Gold had some speculations as to why universities were so resistant to mostly unanimous public health advice. Of these, the most glaring was McGill’s desire to avoid political and social blame. By providing extremely limited data on ventilation, outbreaks, etc., the university makes it harder for a potential patient to place their COVID-19 contact squarely on the university. Professor Janda stepped in to clarify the “exact character” of McGill’s legal argument. The university had originally framed the lack of vaccine policy as protecting human rights, stating that a vaccine mandate wouldn’t legally be possible. On August 16, 12 McGill law professors – including Dr. Janda and Dr. Gold – penned an open letter to McGill in objection, encouraging the administration to implement proof of vaccination. A standout argument was the full mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy adopted by the University of Ottawa, where Jacques Frémont is president and vice-chancellor. Dr. Frémont had previously chaired the Quebec Human Rights Commission; Professor Janda had also been a member. The university framed their argument as them being unable to force vaccinations, but Professor Janda believes it was the result of an implicit cost-benefit analysis. “I happen to be a teacher of civil liability, and this is the classical test for when one is adequately diligent,” he said. “Is the burden upon you to take additional measures so severe that it doesn’t match the probability of harm?” No; the burden McGill faces in implementing a mandate is not so significant that the university ought not to consider the additional harm arising from the effects of COVID-19, Janda claimed. And while the university had made the Quebec vaccine passport seem like their limited mode of verification, Professor Janda emphasized the importance of distinguishing between proof of vaccination and the vaccine passport. Proof of vaccination is a much more flexible request. It can encompass foreign vaccines that are not yet approved by the Canadian government, an important consideration for a university as international as McGill, and can also account for medical and religious accommodations. SSMU vice-president Claire Downie claimed that the university is prioritizing optics rather than the needs of its student body: “Students know that their health and their safety and their wellbeing are not a priority and the unwillingness of the University to implement a vaccination requirement is really emblematic of that.” The priorities that students had identified instead were factors such as reputation, image, and political pressure. They felt that McGill simply chose not to centre student needs in their policymaking, despite having the funds and means to enact change. The result was a loss of trust that would not easily be restored, per Downie. Downie held a protest with her colleagues on the first day of classes, which proved to be an opportunity to hear student experiences on the ground. Vulnerable community members told Downie how unwilling the university had been to give long-term medical exemptions. Requesting accommodations was an intrusive and inaccessible process – the burden was on them to provide all of their private medical information, and they were not told how many people would have access to that sensitive data. But although many students are disappointed, Downie said, it is not too late. “We remain hopeful that the university will make a choice to protect students and other vulnerable community members,” she concluded. Last on the roster was Professor Smith from Western University, which is currently under a full vaccine mandate. His goal was to provide an ethical justification for vaccine mandates, as well as examine some ethical considerations unique to university campuses. Combining science and ethics was a straightforward yet eyeopening exercise that went like this: • Premise 1: Covid vaccines are an effective and safe measure to prevent suffering and death • Premise 2: Getting vaccinated is a minimal burden for nearly all people • Premise 3: One ought to prevent suffering and death, especially when doing so carries a minimal burden • Conclusion: One ought, morally speaking, to be vaccinated. Professor Smith also offered some responses to common ethical concerns surrounding vaccine mandates. For example, would mandates amount to coercion? According to him, they do not. Mandates would not directly force anyone to get jabbed – they would only “render their choice to continue to work or study at the university more constrained.” Was it infringing upon liberties? Here, the professor quoted the American Civil Liberties Union: “Vaccine mandates actually further civil liberties. They protect the most vulnerable among us, including people with disabilities and fragile immune systems, children too young to be vaccinated and communities of colour hit hard by the disease.” The panel addressed some questions, such as what accommodations the university could provide if a vaccine mandate was implemented. Professor Hankins sought to clear a common misconception first – according to her, legitimate medical objections are actually quite rare. Having a bad reaction to the first dose would be an acceptable reason, but in general, she explained that “physicians can’t really understand what people are talking about when they want a medical exemption.” As for religious accommodations, the university would require the vaccine-hesitant individuals to fully outline their objections first. If their reluctance stemmed from a specific doctrine or dogma related to their faith and had no relation to explicit falsehoods (e.g., belief that mRNA vaccines contain fetal cells), the request would be granted, and they would be required to undergo frequent testing. The frequency would vary by the university’s discretion; Professor Smith added that Western required twice-weekly testing. When the panel moved on to concluding remarks, the speakers were in unanimous agreement that the University’s current policies have not been reasonable, and that the administration has the potential to improve.
Sophie McLean | Illustrations Contributor
