The CSSG has an Equity Problem

On Thursday, June 25, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced the Canada Student Service Grant (CSSG), which provides students with up to $5,000 for volunteering in programs related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The multi-million dollar contract to administer the grant was initially awarded to WE Charity, a Canadian organization that claims to empower youth to make a difference, but the contract has since been rescinded in response to public criticism. Looking deeper, there are also a number of equity concerns within the structure of the grant itself.

 Even though they are no longer engaged with the CSSG program, the fact that the government awarded WE Charity the contract to begin within warrants concern. The obvious ties between the Trudeau family and WE were immediately criticized by the media, given that there has been little information provided on how the decision to allocate the contract was made. This past week, a number of current and former WE staff have also come forward with allegations of racism, homophobia, and censorship against the organization and its leadership. Former WE employee Santai Kimakeke alleges that he is currently separated from his family and unable to travel from Kenya as a result of false accusations pitted against him by Marc Kielburger (one of the organization’s founders). Kimakeke has also accused Marc Keilburger of psychological abuse and misuse of power, and has further detailed fraudulent and criminal practices, misappropriation, money laundering, and tax evasion committed by the organization on his blog, “Odd Truths About We Charity.” Amanda Maitland and Talitha Toles are two other former staff members who have spoken out, detailing the organization’s racist tendencies. 

For those familiar with the organization, these recent allegations shouldn’t come as a surprise. Jaren Kerr, a reporter for Canadaland, has investigated ethical issues within the organization since 2018, with findings including the use of child labour in their supply chain, a toxic work environment, bullying from senior leadership, high burnout rates, false advertising, and a lack of professional boundaries. Even earlier, in 2015, WE came under fire after footage of We Day and criticism of WE trips to Ecuador was scrubbed from CBC’s “Volunteers Unleashed” —a documentary centering on the harms of voluntourism—just before its air date. The footage that did make it into the film, according to the interviewee featured, was heavily altered to direct criticism away from the organization. 

Looking to the grant itself, its valuation and structure have also raised a number of pay equity concerns. The grant provides students with $1,000 for every 100 hours volunteered, up to $5,000. Broken down to an hourly wage, that comes to $10 an hour—well below the minimum wage across Canada. Coupled with CESB, students could potentially earn $22 an hour if they are able to complete the full 500 hours of volunteer work—but the likelihood of that happening seems slim. 500 hours is an extremely high expectation (equivalent to the number of hours they’d work over the course of 3 months at a regular 9 to 5 job). For students who are also caring for family, pitching in at home, taking courses online, or actively looking for work, 500 hours would prove next to impossible. 

The way the grant is structured adds to its inequity as well, in that it has the potential to leave huge amounts of labour unrecognized. Because the grant is broken into sections of 100 hours, if a student volunteers 199 hours, they’ll only be paid for the first hundred. Unless a student is completely certain they’ll be able to complete the hours in sections of 100, they could finish the four months with a lot of uncompensated work. 

The initial CESB announcement was already concerning for many, given that it was a hefty $750 less than CERB’s $2,000—appearing to value students less than the working population. Now with the announcement of the CSSG, the pair suggests that the government only values the wellbeing and security of students if they are able to benefit from their labour. CESB hardly provides enough for students looking to pay for rent and food, let alone tuition, so many will have no choice but to sign up for the CSSG. Funnelling students into a semi-accessible four-month volunteer program through which they will be underpaid, and that appears to take the place of efforts to create student jobs, is exploitative at best, and takes advantage of students who are struggling financially. 

Can we really call it “volunteer” labour if students need the extra money in order to survive? 

 It is also important to recognize who is eligible for the program. International students, students over 30, and students who have received CERB at any point—which is quite a large portion of students—are ineligible. Those students are not immune to the costs of living in Canada, and some (international students) pay far higher fees for tuition while at school, likely increasing their need for such a program. Evidently, then, the grant isn’t meant to support all students.

The CSSG as a program is deeply flawed. Taking the implementation of the program out of the hands of WE Charity is a step in the right direction, but it doesn't solve the issues that come with the grant itself. Whether the grant proves to be successful for the young people who apply remains in question, but the outlook, considering the issues presented above, isn’t good.

Faculty Split on Reopening

On June 19, 2020, StFX University announced its intentions to host students back on campus in September, with the majority of classes being offered in-person. Until the nineteenth, StFX was one of the few Canadian universities yet to make a decision regarding online vs. in-person classes, and students, staff, and faculty alike were eagerly awaiting the official announcement. Now that we have an answer, the question is, what does everyone think?

For the week following the announcement, I collected survey responses from 88 members of StFX faculty to find out what they are thinking and feeling about the university’s decision. The responses came from both contract and tenure or tenure-track faculty, and from more than 22 different departments. This article is a summary of what I found.

Overall, faculty are largely divided in their opinions about whether StFX made the right decision. 35% of faculty surveyed agree or strongly agree with the statement that StFX made the right decision to host students on campus in the fall, while 42% disagree or strongly disagree. The remaining 23% opted to remain neutral.

For those who agree with the decision, the mental health of students is front of mind. Dr. Angie Kolen, for instance, believes that in order for us to remain mentally healthy, “we need to be social, see people—in person.” Another professor, who wishes to remain anonymous, agrees with the decision largely because the alternative (online delivery) would cause more harm, and exacerbate a number of problems that already exist. Those problems include the mental health struggles that Dr. Kolen mentions, as well as academic struggles and social inequity. Then, there would also be an array of new problems to deal with, such as inconsistent internet access. Online education, they say, “has been shown to exacerbate social inequities, further widening the gulf between high-performing students who often come from wealthier … backgrounds and students who are disadvantaged.”

Those who are more skeptical, however, also speak to the inequities that an in-person approach might exacerbate. A number of respondents point out that students and faculty who are immuno-compromised will likely face increased difficulties and lower quality education, having to take or teach all their courses online regardless of an open campus. One professor, whose son has asthma, worries that returning to in person teaching would put their son at serious risk. “What of faculty, students, and staff with serious health problems or in vulnerable age groups? What about parents with young kids and nowhere to place them? What about elder care,” they ask?

If an outbreak occurs, many faculty are also concerned that the resulting shift online will look much like it did in March: chaotic, rushed, and nowhere near the quality of education students are paying for. A scramble to get home could also create financial hardship for many students, or prove impossible for those who need to cross international borders. What more, faculty are being told by administration that “they do not have to provide any more accommodation for students who have to self-isolate and miss face-to-face classes than they normally would if students get sick,” despite the fact that the situation we are in is far from normal. The professor who pointed this out was also concerned that some faculty may be penalized for putting in the extra work to support sick students, and consequently spending less time on other aspects of their jobs such as research.

Another big factor for those against the decision was whether they thought students and faculty would follow the rules. 65% of faculty surveyed disagree or strongly disagree with the statement that they believe StFX students will respect social distancing protocols, while only 20% agree or strongly agree. Concerns about fellow faculty not following those protocols were expressed in survey responses as well. For many, this distrust in others is a big reason why they feel unsafe returning to work. For others, there are still simply too many unknowns. Dr. Tharshanna Nadarajah, who teaches Math and Statistics, believes that given the identified risks, “forcing students back on campus is putting the school’s financial interests over student safety—regardless of how they try and spin it.”

Of the faculty members surveyed, only 35% of faculty said that they had been consulted by StFX prior to the announcement, while an even smaller 30% agree or strongly agree with the statement that StFX adequately consulted with and considered the needs of faculty prior to making their decision. For those who were consulted, some also expressed that they felt their concerns were ignored because of the institution’s financial concerns.

The responses of contract faculty versus those of tenure or tenure-track faculty also revealed a number of inequities within the university’s decision-making process. While all faculty are being asked to contribute a significant amount of labour to preparing for both online and in-person teaching, part-time and contract professors aren’t being paid for that work. Another respondent pointed out that the various seminars, webinars, and townhalls being hosted by StFX administration might be missed by contract employees who are technically not employed by StFX during the summer, and may be busy with other jobs or commitments. This respondent wonders “how many contract employees will miss out on opportunities to learn online teaching methods, or proper safety protocols because of their current employment status?” Many contract faculty also don’t receive sick leave (paid or unpaid), or other health benefits, which in the midst of a global pandemic, makes returning to work all the more unsafe. Failing to provide all faculty with sick leave and health benefits while asking them to return to return to work, as one professor puts it, “is to treat them as disposable.”

Not all contract faculty were upset about the decision to open campus, however. One professor shared their excitement over the decision, because had the university decided to shift online, their position may have been cut; they were grateful to still have employment in September. Others appreciated the opportunity to learn how to teach online, despite the fact they weren’t being paid—looking at it as free professional development.

Overall, faculty opinions on StFX’s decision to reopen campus for in-person instruction are mixed. Some are overwhelmingly in favour, while others remain skeptical that the university’s plan will be effective in preventing an outbreak of COVID-19. The most common trend among responses was a concern about the inequities that either decision would have exacerbated, leaving us to wonder why so many inequities exist to be exacerbated in the first place. For an institution that prides themselves in social justice leadership, StFX has a lot of work left to do.

StFX ALUMNI - Homecoming 2020 Rescheduled

Homecoming at StFX is a special day for alumni as they return to their home. Alumni from all years travel to StFX for a special weekend of re-visiting their residences, seeing their favorite professors, and finding out what is new on campus at StFX. Alumni have the chance to visit their old sports teams, societies, and visit with old friends. It is a weekend filled with fun activities for students and alumni to look forward to. It is also a special day for current students as they learn about new and old traditions from the alumni, and see StFX’s school spirit throughout the day from alumni. Homecoming brings every StFX student current and past together to celebrate their university, the place they call home, the weekend has something for everyone.

Sadly this year there will be no homecoming. Due to Covid-19, it has been decided to postpone the weekend. The decision has been made to have homecoming 2020 in August of 2021.

StFX said in an email to students, “While everyone was disappointed with the news, it is the responsible thing to do from a health and safety standpoint.”

StFX plans to send out more information and scheduled dates closer to August of 2021.

Even though StFX will not be able to show their school spirit during homecoming of 2020, students and alumni will continue to celebrate their home, StFX.

StFX to Reopen Amidst COVID-19 Pandemic

Following approval by the University Senate on June 18th, and the Board of Governors June 19th, StFX President Dr. Kevin Wamsley announced plans to reopen campus to students. In an email to StFX students, Wamsley announced that StFX will “offer a Senate-endorsed approach of mixed-method course delivery,” beginning September 14th.

In the email to students, Wamsley noted that the decision comes after “much careful planning and deliberation,” citing the safety of the StFX community as the university’s top priority.

Reactions to the announcement are mixed. While many students celebrate the potential return to normalcy, others are concerned. StFX Students’ Union Graduate Student Representative Lauren Viana, who is returning to campus shortly to complete self-isolation before continuing research, is concerned about safety. “All you need is one person to slip up,” Viana says, “and you can decimate a population.” According to Viana, graduate students doing research have been asked to fill out a return-to-research form outlining what facilities they will need, and what PPE they have. However, Viana has yet to see any official documentation with guidelines on returning to research. Despite these concerns, Viana is satisfied, and described reopening as “great.”

Sanjidha Ganeshan, a 4th year psychology student from Mauritius told the Xaverian Weekly that she “love[s] that school is opening again for the fall semester.” Ganeshan notes that “reopening campus will be easy if everyone does their part and respects all safety protocols.” Despite this, Ganeshan, who previously served at the International Student Representative for the Students’ Union anticipates that “some international students who went back home might decide to take the semester off just to be safe.”

StFX Students’ Union President Sarah Elliott, in a statement released shortly after the announcement was made, expresses the Union’s support for the plan. Elliott emphasized that “the StFX Students’ Union’s number one priority is the well-being of our students.” Elliot went on to say that the students’ union “[looks] forward to working with the university to provide a safe and fulfilling StFX experience.”

The members of the StFX Association of University Teachers (StFXAUT) are “cautiously optimistic” according to a statement released Friday afternoon. The StFXAUT says that their members are “looking forward to again being able to have in person interactions with students and colleagues.” The StFXAUT did however express concerns “with the lack of support being provided to many of [their] members who, despite not currently being employed by the university, are expected to … begin preparations for the fall.” This would include any part-time academic staff and contract faculty.

Laurie Boucher, Mayor of the Town of Antigonish, commented “This was a university decision that was made based on consultations with the province and public health officials. Now that the decision has been made the Town will be working with the university, hospital, RCMP and landlords in Antigonish to ensure the safety of students and residents in our community.” Boucher, responding to anxieties in the community, said “All of the partners involved have everyone’s best interests in mind and is keeping health safety a top priority during the preparation process and for when the students return in August and September.”

In an interview with Xaverian Weekly Editor-in-Chief, Will Fraser, StFX President Kevin Wamsley described the decision making process that lead up to today’s announcement. According to Wamsley the planning process has been ongoing for more than nine weeks. This process involved consultation with various stakeholders including the Students’ Union, Town of Antigonish, Municipality of the County of Antigonish, the RCMP, Saint Martha’s Regional Hospital, and landlords.

Based on consultations with these stakeholders, the university conducted space assessments of the campus, and a flow assessment to determine how the university could safely operate in the fall. With nine weeks of planning completed, the university submitted their plans to the Chief Medical Officer of Health, Dr. Robert Strang, and the Department of Labour and Advanced Education. As of this week, Wamsley says, Dr. Strang confirmed the plans were “solid.” Following the sign-off by the province, the plans were presented to the University Senate and Board of Governors. After two hours of discussion, the Board of Governors voted unanimously in favour of the recommendation.

Asked for his message to students who now must decide if they feel safe enough to return, Wamsley says “safety is a responsibility of everyone.” and noted that the university has taken steps to ensure the safety of faculty, staff, and students. Wamsley calls upon students to “be partners with [the university] and the community,” and to protect the most vulnerable members of the StFX community.

It remains unclear what restrictions will be in place when students return in September, but we know that StFX will not look the same as it has in the past.

Fall Reading Week Eliminated with Little Student Consultation

At an emergency meeting of the StFX University Senate on the morning of June 18th, the senate passed a motion to eliminate the Fall Reading Week for the 2020-2021 Academic year. The motion originated in the report of the Academic Vice-President, Dr. Tim Hynes.

Dr. Hynes commented that “the cancellation of the Fall Study Break was not something anyone wanted to see happen, ” but emphasized the university’s concern for the risks of student travel during the COVID-19 pandemic. The trade-off he says, “is ending classes sooner to get them [students] home earlier in December.”

This move comes as the university prepares their plan for fall classes, which will be voted on by the Board of Governors on June 19th.

According to Siobhan Lacey, the StFX Students’ Union Vice-President Academic, this decision follows conversations between the Students’ Union Executive and the University Administration. Dr. Hynes described the Executive as being “supportive.” Lacey agrees, saying that “the number one priority of the StFX Students’ Union is the safety of our students,” and that the Union is “eager to work with the university to fill any gaps” that are left by the elimination of reading week.

Some have raised questions about the lack of student consultation that was done around this decision. One student senator, speaking on condition of anonymity, described themselves as “surprised” by the motion to remove reading week.

Alex Clow, the Student Arts Senator, described “confusion about communication” due to the turnover of senators as leading to late notice of the meeting.  According to Clow, the Student’s Union Vice-President Academic was the only student senator notified of the meeting until Clow heard from a faculty member about the upcoming meeting. Following this, Clow emailed Lacey, and she had the information sent to the other five student senators. The student senators did not get the invitation to the meeting until Monday, June 15th, three days before the meeting.

Clow, who voted in favor of the motion to eliminate fall reading week for the 2020-2021 academic year described himself as being fully supportive of the idea, citing the dangers of travel in during the pandemic.

The fall reading week was created in response to advocacy by 2018-2019 Students’ Union Vice-President Academic Tiffany MacLennan, who conducted a student survey to gage support for the idea. Students overwhelmingly supported the idea of a fall reading week, with 97.65 percent of respondents supporting the idea, with the highest support in the Faculty of Arts with 98.41 percent support, and the lowest support in the Faculty of Arts and Science with 97.01 percent support.

With such wide support for a fall reading week, it is unclear how students will react. In response to the decision, one early commenter said “I think that the university should consider the possibility that students use that time to study for their courses effectively. Ultimately, student success should be the main priority. ”

As students prepare to begin classes in the fall, this schedule change will likely factor in to their decision making moving forward.

Patagonia Action Works

Clothing company integrates activism with business

Patagonia has announced that they will refuse to sell corporate logo vests to companies that do not prioritize the environment. The fleece vest has become a corporate wardrobe staple of Wall Street and Silicone Valley firms. The change in Patagonia’s distribution policy came to light when the CEO of the financial communication PR firm Vested applied for, ironically, branded vests. According to an email from an unidentified supplier:

“Patagonia has nothing against your client or the financial industry, it’s just not an area they are currently marketing through our co-brand division. While they have co-branded here in the past, the brand is really focused right now on only co-branding with a small collection of like-minded and brand aligned areas; outdoor sports that are relevant to the gear we design, regenerative organic farming, and environmental activism.... Due to their environmental activism, they are reluctant to co-brand with oil, drilling, mining, dam construction, etc. companies that they view to be ecologically damaging...”

Patagonia has a long history of environmental activism. In 2018, CEO Rose Marcario announced Patagonia was going to give back the $10 million tax cut to grassroots organizations focused on environmental conservation. Until recently, the company mission was “Build the best product, cause no unnecessary harm, use business to inspire and implement solutions to the environmental crisis.” The slogan was changed in December, however, to something more akin to a call to action: “Patagonia is in the business to save our home planet.”

The change has impacted more than just the company letterhead, however. In an order to the company HR department, founder Yvon Chouinard requested that throughout company hirings - regardless of department - experience being equal, the candidate who is the most committed to environmental conservation should be hired. According to a report published by Fast Company, Chouinard has said the change has “made a huge difference in the people coming into the company.”

In addition to mottos and missions, Patagonia has a long history of supporting organizations dedicated to outdoor activities and environmental initiatives. The company has a history of awarding 900 grants per year to various organizations. Recently, the company has become much more selective in the grant allocation process, choosing to focus on three key areas: agriculture, politics, and protected lands. In an interview with Fast Company, Chouinard provided an example of this increased selectivity:

“We give out about 900 grants a year to different activist organizations… We’ve given money to an organization that repairs people’s bicycles. Well, they’re not going to get any money anymore.”

Chouinard has a long personal history of environmental activism, both within and outside the company. In 1986, Chouinard dedicated 1% of total Patagonia sales, or 10% of profits (whichever was higher) to environmental activism and initiatives. In the early 1990s, an environmental audit of the company revealed that the source of their cotton – although ethically farmed – had a large associated environmental footprint. The use of pesticides and insecticides were responsible for a vast amount of the environmental damage associated with cotton production. In response, Chouinard ordered the company to switch cotton sources to those that were certified organic. Although the move was valiant, it almost resulted in the bankruptcy of the company. Sales plummeted 20% due to supply chain issues, and it took Patagonia a total of three years to train and certify the cotton farmers. After the cotton supply issues were remedied, however, sales improved to a steady rate, and have been increasing ever since.

The action taken by Patagonia to not only combat ecological damage, but also enforce environmental proactivity through selective partnerships, is a wonderful example of using corporate influence for the betterment of society. Acta non verba. Social corporate responsibility is a topic too often tackled by words, rather than actions. 

Patagonia has taken corporate responsibility several orders of magnitude beyond the industry standard; hopefully firms will take after their lead, and alter their own internal policies accordingly.

Irony on the World Stage

Comedic relief in time for exams

As another year winds to a close here at StFX, and the heavy weight of exams come bearing down on us all, a good whimsical tale can help alleviate the pressure. Or better yet, two recent stories from across the globe which serve to remind us that sometimes the truth really is stranger than fiction. Or at least more ironic.

Massimiliano Fedriga, of the League party in Italy, has been vocal in his opposition to Italy’s policy of mandatory vaccinations of children since its inception. The mandate was put into law following a Measles outbreak in 2017, and it requires vaccinations against twelve diseases.

According to the legislation, unvaccinated children would be barred from pre-school and daycare, and their parents would face heavy fines.

Fedriga argued that parents shouldn’t be obliged to vaccinate their children. He even went as far as to say on one occasion, that the larger part of the ruling coalition government at that time, the Democratic party, was being “Stalinist.”

Recently, rather unfortunately and somewhat comically, Fedriga contracted chicken-pox — one of the 12 diseases requiring vaccination in 2017’s legislation.

Many were quick to point out the brutal irony of the situation on Twitter. But, to be fair to Mr. Fedriga, he claims that he was never a supporter of the anti-vax movement. As reported by The Independent, Mr Fedriga recently posted on Twitter, “I have always said that I am in favour of vaccines, but to achieve the result it is necessary to have an alliance with families not imposition.”

A well known Italian doctor, and operator of the website MedicalFacts, Robert Burioni first wished Mr. Fedrigo a speedy recovery. But, afterwards, he took the opportunity to highlight the importance of vaccinations, “The only way we have to avoid such tragedies is to vaccinate us all to prevent the circulation of this dangerous virus, which could have hit a much more vulnerable person.”

If that story was not bizzare enough, don’t worry, there’s more. In a turn of events that one would expect in a piece by The Onion, an Egyptian singer by the name of Sherine Abdel-Wahab has recently barred from performing in Egypt for implying that the country doesn’t respect free speech.

According to the New York Post, at a concert in Bahrain in late March, Abdel-Wahab was recorded saying “Here I can say whatever I want. In Egypt, anyone who talks gets imprisoned.”

After this remark, a high-profile Egyptian lawyer, Samir Sabri, filed suit against Abdel-Wahab. The lawsuit accused the singer of using the music festival and foreign parties to speak ill of Egypt. The singer was then promptly banned from performing by the Egyptian Musicians Syndicate, which licenses musicians in the country.

The Emirates Woman magazine reports that the following week, Abdel-Wahab made a public appearance to President Abdel-Fattah el-Sisi, saying, “I am very tired. I made a mistake. I am sorry. I appeal the president of the Arab Republic of Egypt, who is our father. I feel that I was persecuted. I did nothing. I love Egypt.”

Despite the outlandish stories, we remind the reader that they are in fact reading The Xaverian Weekly, and they are not dreaming. Good luck with exams, until next time.

Patrolling the Policies of X-Patrol

A sit-down with Senior Lead John Comeau

During The Xaverian Weekly’s production night on March 11 2019, Two X-Patrol members were sitting down near the radio station. Of course, taking breaks is perfectly fine. However, more than three hours later, those same two individuals were sitting in the same spots. It was then when they got a message on the radio to take a break.

“Finally!” one exclaimed enthusiastically.

Why would those two be sitting down for three hours, hanging out on their phones?

I sat down with John Comeau, Senior Lead of X-Patrol, on March 22 to get some answers.

***

BA: How many current X-Patrol members are there?

JC: 78 and they’re all students

BA: What kind of screening happens for an application?

JC: We first make sure that the student is coming back for more than just their fourth year, so that we can retain high numbers of staff and we don’t have a turnover every year. So we’re looking for second and third year applicants, and sometimes we’ll make an exception if we are really short on staff. But, we make sure that they’re in good academic and conduct standing. We send it off to Residence Life and they tell us if they have any major conduct issues or like a 60 or 65 average I think. That’s kind of like the only screening and then we conduct interviews. They are pretty brief, and based on that we decide. We’re pretty open and we usually don’t turn many people away for this job because there is events that require 30 or so staff.

BA: What do walk-homes consist of, and what limits do officers have to their patrolling?

JC: The walk home system was created as a way of helping students get home safe after events. We always partner up a male and a female on patrol so that no matter who we’re walking home they feel safe, and approachable. Our parameters for where we can walk home is anywhere on campus. If somebody lives off-campus we can walk them right to the edge of campus, but our staff are told not to leave campus property. Oftentimes we’ll just even walk people back from like the KMC to Bloomfield so they can get a drive with Drive U to get home that way. Or even between the library after 8pm when it’s dark sometimes. We’ve had students call security and ask for just a walk home from the library to Governor’s or something like that.

BA: How many people per day patrol?

JC: On any given night we’ll have at least six, but on Wednesday, Friday and Saturday we have eight until 3am. But, on any other night of the week, it’s only until 12:30. But we have two people or one patrol pair stay after 12:30 and work in the Bloomfield until three, so that the building can remain open after hours.

BA: Do you think that there are too many patrols at some point?

JC: On weekends, it can honestly be not enough but I think that it’s finding that right balance because there are nights where it’s quiet and we’re not really needed. However, for example during exam period we still keep six staff on every day of the exam period right up until the end. But, you never know when something’s going to happen or when something’s going to come out of the blue. Outside of just walking people home and doing patrols like that, we also assist the officers in doing checks on apartment style because there’s no community advisors (CA) in those buildings. They do roundabouts throughout the floors to report damages or parties or anything like that. And they also do wall walks around the Oland Centre/Keating complex to make sure that there’s no high schoolers, because there’s a lot of space on campus that can’t be monitored by the three full time officers. So, I think that it’s an appropriate number. But in years past they didn’t have any patrols on Sunday, Monday or Tuesday nights. It was just a Wednesday, Thursday, Friday & Saturday thing.

BA: When did that change happen?

JC: I think it was about five years ago with new management. They figured that with the new walk home program, that was something that they wanted to offer every night of the week.

BA: What are the responsibilities of the full-time security officers?

JC: They’re in charge of doing more lockouts of bedrooms and opening and closing classrooms and buildings, issuing temporary keys and those type of things. Usually when there’s a thing that X-Patrol deals with that gets escalated, they’ll be in charge of helping out before we get the RCMP involved. There’s only two of them so they’re pretty busy with their own duties, and a lot of things kind of fall on them if a student has problems with their faucet late at night, they could call security and they would go. Or if there’s a leak in a building, there’s a lot of small jobs that they’re tied up with so they often aren’t around on campus.

BA: Do X-Patrol Officers have the jurisdiction to ticket students?

JC: No, so we don’t write tickets. You have to go through a police appointment act to be able to act as an officer and write provincial tickets. We just deal with a lot of incident reporting and putting people through conduct that way. We do writeups but not like in a ticketing form and I know that the school used to give fines for certain things but that’s not really our business.

BA: Do you know how much students pay for the X-Patrol program?

JC: I’m not entirely sure how the financing of student goes. But, how X-Patrol is funded is, we have an account with the university that’s budgeted for these patrols and the same kind of thing that Drive U does is there’s an account that will do the daily kind of patrols. We’re in Meal Hall every single night of the week which is paid through by Sodexo. We’re kind of contracted out through lots of different departments on campus. For example, athletics will get us at their events, the Students’ Union will call us in for assistance managing The Inn line or an event in the Mackay room or even The Alumni Affairs will have us at a wine and cheese night if there’s a bar. So anytime there’s liquor served on campus, it’s more sensible for us to be the security enforcing liquor licenses than it is to have a full-time officer at their rate of pay because we get paid minimum wage for what our security work is. We’re kind of contracted out and I would say, 80% of the hours that are available to our staff, go through events and Residence Life and athletics and all these different departments that require us to be on campus for.

BA: The contracting work, do you guys get paid the same or different than the regular work?

JC: It’s all the same, they request a number of XP’s that they want at the events and we will confirm whether or not we think it's an appropriate number to staff that event. It’s kind of on a need basis based on what the event is and such.

BA: I know we have a safety and security fee at the start of they year and I am not sure how much of that is appointed to X-Patrol?

JC: Yeah, I don't particularly know the numbers. I know that the entire budget for the X-Patrol essential service, which includes campus patrol and all of the nightly work that we do, which is paid through by our department, is very minimal. We typically have six people working from eight until 12 (four hours), that's 24 hours at minimum wage. But for a house hockey cup as an example, we have 35 staff in the Keating Centre, and they're all paid for four hours and then we have like six per residence for an hour shift right, so there's a lot more money coming out from the events that is paid out through the departments. We're on an approved budget through the Board of Governors, as long as it stays within the kind of pre-approved parameters

BA: Do you think that the students payment prior to the addition of the all-day patrol under the old management cost more?

JC: You know, I don’t really know, but I do know that five years ago the full time officers were under a different contract, and some of the duties that they have done have increased and such they’ve worked out different arrangements for compensation, so their salary is significantly higher than what we get paid.They work full time hours so the majority of what the security fee would entitle is probably paid out through the full time staff. I would say that the whole money that cycles through this department is paid out through other people contracting us for events and such.

BA: What is the disciplinary process for the X-Patrol Officers, if they were caught doing something they weren’t supposed to be doing?

X-Patrol Senior Leads: Katrina, John and Dylan / Photo: Instagram @X_Patrol

JC: What happens is if we get an email sent to us at X-Patrol (xpatrol@stfx.ca) by any outside person; me, Katrina or Dylan, one of the Senior Leads will read it. We have a performance management system in place where, if a staff will do something like be caught on their phone sitting down or any sort of reprimandable act. Then we go through a one two three strike system where the first strike is kind of an informal meeting where we talk to them about it. The whole idea of it is to not just dismiss staff but it’s a growth and development opportunity because ultimately what we want is our staff to leave X-Patrol with more leadership skills and good work ethic. The leveling system of X-Patrol; there’s level one level two and the Senior Lead. So, there’s a slight compensation grade with that but mainly the level two’s will lead the shifts and they bring a lot of the things to our attention. The Senior Leads are like the management of X-Patrol. If we see people on their phones or doing things like that then it’s kind of brought through a trickle down to us.

BA: How has X-Patrol responded to the recent off-campus case, of a drug-induced sexual assault? Do you guys have meetings where incidents like this are brought up?

JC: We have weekly meetings. So, a lot of issues like that and a lot of concerns are expressed every Sunday. But with sexual assault and with other touchy issues on campus that have been going around, especially if it’s off-campus then it’s not really our job or what we’re being paid to do so we kind of stick towards what we’ve been asked to do and our patrols and walk homes and such. We’re not ever off-campus so I do know that if there’s a time where a CA will call us into a building to help with a situation, a lot of our staff are trained in Mental Health First Aid. Because it was an issue that has been coming up more often than not dealing with cases where there may be situations that are hard to deal with and may leave longer lasting effects on our staff after they leave, so they need to know how to cope with it themselves and how to help other people cope with it.

BA: Do you guys have Bringing in the Bystander training?

JC: Yes, we have a lot of that same training that the CA’s get in September.

BA: What do you think X-Patrol can do better?

JC: You know, there are lots of concerns and we meet and we discuss things that are working well and things that are needed to change. I think one of the common things that’s pretty well known between us and the Students’ Union is the disconnect between the two security departments and how it’s not the most effective way of applying security on campus, when we have two separate departments, one in The Inn through the Students’ Union wearing the green shirts and us through X-Patrol. We have different protocols and we have different communication and a lot of the things, it would be a lot more effective if we were all fluid as one security department because then we would all have the same incident reporting, communication, radioing and first aid training. That’s kind of the one issue that we face and there’s a lot of gray zone and it’s been fixed a little bit this year as we are actually paid now to be in the second floor of the Bloomfield. In years past, I know that we weren’t paid and, The Inn lineup can often be an issue where a lot of things will happen, or when students leave The Inn they are storming out and they’re damaging things. So, our patrols were having to leave outside and come inside the second floor of the Bloomfield, and we resolved that issue with a discussion between us, Sean Ryan (The U Manager) and Cody McGregor (The Inn Manager) saying there's a need for us to be in the building and it's not fair when we can’t continue to do our job when we're having to clean up the mess of the Student Union. But there is an idea circulating about eventually having X-Patrol running the Inn security over the next couple years, they're going to try and transition into all having it under one security. In years past, safety and security campus police were paid and was a part of the Students Union the same way that Drive U is. So, only in the last couple of years it transferred management over into safety and security and there's kind of a disconnect between the two.

You can reach out to xpatrol@stfx.ca with any questions you may have.

Council Controversy of Students’ Union

Incoming president Cecil VanBuskirk wakes up dormant 1972 Act

During the 2016 U.S primaries, the Washington Post made an ominous change to their slogan: “Democracy Dies in Darkness.” The message intended to provoke conversation surrounding the state of democracy in the United States. Without discourse, democratic institutions would certainly perish. Death, however, would not come swiftly; rather, the slow creep of apathy would inevitably lead to the erosion of democratic institutions. Discourse is the preserving light; without it, the roots of democracy atrophy, and darkness follows.

Today is a day for discourse.

Prior to debate, participants must have mutual understanding of the reality, principles and series of events that necessitate discussion. Contra principia negantem non est disputandem. The past few weeks have been full of debate lacking a common ground; therefore, an overview of recent events is in order.

As outlined in the SU Bylaws (the operational document for the Students’ Union), the hired (as opposed to elected) positions of the Students’ Union (SU) have historically (15+ years) been selected by a panel composed of the incoming SU President & Vice-President, outgoing Vice-President (for the position being hired), two councilors and the General Manager (GM) of the Students Union (advisory role, no vote on panel). This panel interviews applicants and then conducts a vote to hire the most competent candidate. A panel system was likely designed to avoid nepotism, especially given the relatively small size of this campus. Once a decision is made, the individual is appointed by the incoming president via an email with an offer of employment attached.

During the recent hiring of the VP Finance and Operations, two candidates were interviewed: Patrick Wallace and Brody Haskell. The panel voted 3-1-1 in favor of Mr. Wallace’s hiring. Following the decision, incoming president Cecil VanBuskirk sent an offer of employment to Mr. Wallace, who accepted the offer.

During the following days, VanBuskirk brought a discrepancy between the By-laws and the SU Act of Incorporation (The Act) to the attention of the GM and the Chair of Council. Within the By-Laws, a panel structure is described for the VP hiring process. In The Act, however, a line item states that the president shall appoint the VP Finance and Operations.

The Act has not been reviewed in decades and is not a document referenced to for day-to-day operations. With that said, legally, The Act is the superseding operational document for the Students’ Union. Up until this point, the line had been interpreted as the president offering the position to the candidate once the panel had voted. Under VanBuskirk’s interpretation, however, the statement provides the president with the unilateral authority to appoint whomever they chose to the position.

VanBuskirk then proceeded to act on this interpretation. Within 24 hours, the already-accepted offer of employment to Mr. Wallace was rescinded, and a new offer of employment was sent to Mr. Haskell. When the issue was brought before council, VanBuskirk referred to the discrepancy between the two documents. VanBuskirk also stated that he felt the panel’s decision to hire Mr. Wallace over Mr. Haskell was rooted in prejudice pertaining to the candidate’s race, gender, ethnicity, and political affiliations. It is worth noting that both candidates are straight, white, cisgender men from Nova Scotia. This leaves political affiliation, which was allegedly not discussed in the interview. When questioned about his comments, VanBuskirk stood by his original allegations of bias:

“Why did I do this then… The reason is that I witnessed some unethical behavior… I witnessed actions that caused concern that would impact the voting on the hiring panel. And then, as a counselor… I have a duty to act in accordance with the Students’ Union by-laws, policies, procedures. So, then I posed the question as to what qualifies this hiring panel, and what criteria makes it a hiring panel…”

A member of council prodded VanBuskirk further, requesting he elaborate on the specific unethical behavior he observed on the panel.

“To me, this boils down to fairness. And when I witnessed fairness not being properly practiced in the hiring panel, that’s when I raised a question to Happiness (International Student Representativa) … The procedure that was followed, I prefer not to directly comment on the circumstances around them, but I witnessed unfairness and I witnessed discrimination, what I perceived as discrimination under the Nova Scotia Human Rights Act and under the [StFX] Code of Conduct.”

The alleged discrimination is not, however, VanBuskirk’s main concern. Again, and again, he reiterated that the issue at hand was not the selection of candidates, but the discrepancy between two major organizational documents.

“It’s not so much a matter of what was done. The bylaws need to be changed. And I understand that there will be a motion on the agenda to change that, and I couldn’t be in more support of that. But for right now, we need to uphold the bylaws and do the bylaws justice.”

The majority of council agreed that a discrepancy exists – that is, the way in which the Students’ Union had been conducting the VP Finance hiring process was not in line with the process outlined in The Act. Additionally, the lawyer retained by the SU has confirmed that The Act is the superseding organizational document.

In fact, several line items of The Act conflict with current SU electoral and operational practices. For instance, The Act states that the President and VP Academic are required to run as a slate; that is, as running mates. This discrepancy draws the validity of the past election, along with those of the past four years, into question. Vice President MacLennan and Incoming President VanBuskirk debated the issue in council:

MacLennan: “Why are you only choosing to follow one point, rather than the rest of the points in The Act of Incorporation… For example, if you want to actually follow The Act of Incorporation, then we should be talking about the election processes thus far. Within The Act of Incorporation, the President and Vice President should have been elected via slate.”

VanBuskirk: “I agree.”

MacLennan: “So why aren’t you contesting that point?”

VanBuskirk: “Because it has already happene- “

MacLennan: “Because it benefits you. But you also already hired someone for the VP Finance position.”

VanBuskirk: “Here’s the issue, O.K. The issue was around the hiring process. We seek out legal advice around the hiring process and after an expert guided us on what exactly to do, we followed that legal action. Not Cecil, The U.”

When VanBuskirk was asked in Council about his relationship with Mr. Haskell, he stated they were not close:

Sasha Paul, Gallery Member: “I have serious concerns based off of what everyone has been bringing up already, that the moment that you chose to bring up these discrepancies, was just when you didn’t feel like your friend had been given a fair chance. Because let’s be honest-“

Unknown Gallery member: “Friend?”

Paul: “He is your acquaintance, is he not?”

Cecil: “Ah, no he’s not, actually.”

Paul: Ok, if you want to go down that route that’s fine. But [inaudible] you are not proving yourself to be a trustworthy President… You’re not even in the position yet. And so, I think this really is going to impact how your team is going to move forward in the next year, and how people are going to view you, because you continue to refer to fairness and to ethics, but your actions are the complete opposite of that. What you are doing here is manipulating things that [inaudible] are at fault, rather than to actually genuinely fix them, you are using that fault to push forward your own agenda. And that’s not what the Students’ Union is about. The Students’ Union is about representing everybody in this room, because they pay Students’ Union fees. This is not free, right? And what you’re doing is taking away people’s voices. You, eliminating the other people’s voices from that panel, the five members that you chose to ignore, is really taking way their voices, and that demonstrates to me what you’re going to do next year, and I’m very concerned about that.

In response to the allegations that VanBuskirk is acquaintances with Haskell, a number of students directed The Xaverian Weekly to an Instagram photo of the two of them, posted to Mr. Haskell’s account. Additionally, two students noted that Haskell and VanBuskirk sit together in class and have presented a group presentation together.

The Xaverian Weekly reached out to VanBuskirk to comment on his relationship with Mr. Haskell:

“I can say that he is someone I know from doing a group project with in the business faculty. I would argue that I have a similar relationship with both Paddy and Brody, they are both aquiantances (sic), nice guys and are both supporters of mine.”

The recent comments by VanBuskirk appear to contradict his previous statement made in front of council.

In response to the controversy surrounding his actions, VanBuskirk wrote a statement for The Xaverian Weekly that has since been published on his personal Facebook account. In summary, VanBuskirk states that the initial hiring process was unconstitutional. Additionally, he outlines why Mr. Haskell was the superior candidate, citing past experience in student government, leadership experience, and base-level Government of Canada Security Clearance, among others. The full list can be found in his statement, published to our website. In comparing Mr. Haskell to Mr. Wallace, the statement alleges that Mr. Wallace was only originally picked because of his popularity and reputation as a “nice guy”.

The posted statement has garnered a significant amount of controversy, with students posting comments both in favor of and against VanBuskirk’s actions. The Xaverian Weekly reached out to some of the vocal students for comment; their statements are included at the end of this article.

In summary, a disagreement between the By-Laws and The Act left VanBuskirk with the legal authority to circumvent the established hiring panel and appoint the candidate who was not chosen for the position. This required VanBuskirk to rescind the offer that had already been accepted by Mr. Wallace. While the legality of the move is no longer under significant dispute, the ethics of circumventing a hiring panel composed of democratically elected councilors and the incoming Vice President has been challenged. Additionally, the rationale behind selecting a single line item to pursue as contradictory, rather than the entire document, has raised questions regarding the intent behind VanBuskirk’s move.

For any readers wishing to follow this story, Council will be meeting to discuss the issue this Sunday at 3:00pm in Council Chambers, 4th Floor SUB.

Statements:

“I am incredibly disappointed in the initial response that was released by Cecil in regards to the VPFO selection process. He did not demonstrate an understanding of the concerns raised by the students towards the decision made, as most of his letter focused on justifying his actions. If he was truly listening to what students have been saying, he would be finding a solution to right perceived wrongdoing, rather than doubling down and blaming students for taking issue with the choices made. This is not acceptable conduct for the incoming student union president.” - Student, anonymous by request

“If it's broken, then it should be fixed. Cecil may have not addressed the situation as discrete as most of the U would have liked him to, but what Cecil did was address it in the most transparent way that he possibly could have. I'm proud to call Cecil a friend because of how real he is. His personality is contagious and he stays true to himself, which is very hard to find these days. To add to this, it takes a true leader to attach their name to a controversial subject and I applaud his passion for the StFX students. Instead of attacking his character or actions I personally think people need to accept that the U has not been following the correct rules and should now take action by correcting the mistakes that have been made. I am excited for Cecil and the rest of his team and to see what steps they can make towards a truly transparent Union.”

- Elizabeth Gushue, Student

“There are several things that, for me at least, don’t add up. Constitutionally, yes you are supposed to appoint the VP Finance, but why not appoint the VP finance that that was democratically chosen by a hiring panel within the U. As Emma already said, as students we put our faith in the hiring panels of the U, and clearly, they thought that Paddy was the better choice. I refuse to believe that

the hiring panel selected Paddy because he was the “nicest guy” and for you to say that is rude and disrespectful. Yes you may believe Brody to be the best candidate for the position, and I’m sure you fought for that, but you lost, and to go against the democratic decision of the hiring panel goes against the core values we have as StFX students and just as responsible citizens. Further, to now go and say “well I chose Will Fraser over him for a different position” is just ridiculous. Obviously you weren’t going to appoint Brody to a different position when you wanted him as VP finance. Arguing that you passed him over for something else is a weak and superficial argument argument at best. I have never felt this let down by the organization that is supposed to defend me as I do right now.”

But what do I know, I’m one of those people who “doesn’t have a brain” as per one of your former posts...

- John Walker, Student

“I know I’m not around anymore but I’m deeply saddened and frustrated by your actions, Cecil. The U has taken tremendous efforts over the last couple years to be more inclusive and dispel the belief that it is a clique. I can’t help but feel you’ve taken the step forward that was made towards that goal, two steps back.”

- Annie Sirois, StFX SU President 2017-2018.

Ethiopian Airlines Flight Tragedy

Another grim disaster, claiming 157 lives

On March 10, the Ethiopian Airlines flight ET302 crashed, leaving all 157 people onboard dead.

The passengers were citizens from 35 countries. Kenyans were the most represented nationality, with 32 losing their lives. Canadians were the second largest group, with 18 fatalities.

The United Nations has stated that 21 people who lost their lives onboard Flight ET302 were affiliated with the organization.

It is likely that it will be months before the full investigative reports are made public. But, there are some leads.

The model of aircraft which crashed shortly after take off from Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, is known as a “737 Max 8.” It’s a new iteration of the Boeing 737, which is one of the most successful airliner series in the world active since 1968. The Max 8 is one of Boeing’s newest airliners, beginning service with Malaysia’s Malindo Air on May 22, 2017.

The new design includes improved aerodynamics, more efficient and powerful CFM LEAP engines, and an updated cabin which rides lower to the ground. The lower profile of the aircraft was included in the design to make the aircraft more suitable for smaller airports with limited ground equipment. While this may sound like a small design change, it wasn’t.

Because the aircraft sits lower to the ground, the position of its new, larger engines had to be adjusted. In response, Boeing moved the engines a little further forward and higher up on the underwing pylons. If the engines were too low, they could potentially intake rubbish from the runway, to catastrophic effect. The chosen design allowed Boeing to fit the new engines without necessitating an entire fuselage redesign.

But, it was not without its flaws. The changed position of the engines created a possible risk that the nose would pitch up during flight, which could cause stalling. To mitigate the risk, Boeing created a software called Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System, or MCAS. MCAS couples with a sensor on the fuselage that would detect if the nose is too high and automatically make corrections.

Back on October 29, Lion Air flight 610 crashed in the Java sea, killing 189 people, The circumstances were similar, crashing shortly after take off. The aircraft, also a 737 Max 8.

Examination into the Lion Air crash found that the pilots were unable to control the airspeed or altitude of the airliner and after each time they pulled up from a dive the system forced it down again.

According to the New York Times, a warning light which was intended to warn pilots of the faulty sensor was sold by Boeing as part of an optional instrument package. When CNET asked about the warning light a Boeing spokesman said:

“All Boeing airplanes are certified and delivered to the highest levels of safety consistent with industry standards. Airplanes are delivered with a baseline configuration, which includes a standard set of flight deck displays and alerts, crew procedures and training materials that meet industry safety norms and most customer requirements. Customers may choose additional options, such as alerts and indications, to customize their airplanes to support their individual operations or requirements.”

Questions were raised over the training of the pilot in the March 10 flight. But Ethiopian Airlines, which is regarded as likely the safest airline in Africa, has responded, claiming that it’s pilots completed the training recommended by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration and Boeing.

Despite Boeing’s claims that the Max 8 is perfectly safe, the FAA has joined the list of more than 40 countries which have grounded the aircraft, citing similarities between ET302’s crash and that of Lion Air flight 610.

Boeing has been backlogged for orders of the Max 8 jet, but now many airlines are getting cold feet. One of the biggest developments being Garuda Indonesia’s sought cancellation of its order for 49 of Boeing’s 737 Max 8’s. A multi-billion dollar deal.

Boeing shares have dropped 14% since the Ethiopia Airlines crash.

The investigation remains ongoing.

Fraud Prevention Month

It pays to check your bank notes

Do you know how to check the security features of Canada’s polymer bank notes, including the vertical $10 note featuring Viola Desmond? If your answer is no, or you’re not entirely sure, read on!

All of Canada’s polymer notes have leading-edge security features, helping us to stay ahead of counterfeiting threats. These features are quick and easy to check by sight and touch.

You can check all your polymer notes in the same way—feel, look and flip:

* Feel the smooth, unique texture of the note. It is made from a single piece of polymer with some transparent areas.

* Feel the raised ink on the large number, the large portrait, and the words “Bank of Canada” and “Banque du Canada.”

* Look for transparency in the large window.

* Look at the detailed metallic images and symbols in the large transparent window.

* Flip the note to see the elements inside the large transparent window repeated in the same colours and detail on the other side.

Photo: Bank of Canada

By now you may have seen the new $10 note in your cash transactions. Did you know the new bill includes some enhanced security features compared with other polymer notes?

* A colour-shifting eagle feather that changes from gold to green

* A 3-D maple leaf that appears to be raised but is actually flat

* Three maple leaves above the portrait

You can learn about the vertical $10 and watch a video about its security features at https://www.bankofcanada.ca/banknotes/vertical10/.

Photo: Bank of Canada

Did you know?

There are more than 2.2 billion genuine notes in circulation in Canada. Bank notes are a vital method of payment used in over 30 per cent of retail transactions.

The Bank of Canada works to keep counterfeit levels low in Canada by

* strengthening bank note security through ongoing research and development;

* working with retailers to increase bank note verification;

* working with law enforcement agencies to promote counterfeit deterrence; and,

* ensuring the quality of notes in circulation.

More tips

Whether you’re the clerk or the customer, you can help stop counterfeit notes from entering the cash flow. Check your notes, and you’ll be able to detect a counterfeit at a glance.

* Compare a suspicious note to one you know is genuine. Look for differences, not similarities.

* Check two or more security features.

* If you do not know how to check an older paper note, ask for a polymer note instead.

For more about Canada’s bank notes, security features and counterfeit prevention, go to www.bankofcanada.ca/banknotes.

SNC-Lavalin Controversy

Trudeau’s fatal flaw?

Over the past few weeks, a significant scandal has emerged in Canadian politics. That scandal is the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin and the possible interference in it by the office of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

Before approaching the scandal, a brief overview of SNC-Lavalin’s history is necessary.

Based in Montreal, SNC-Lavalin is a large construction and engineering firm which operates in many regions of the world. Within Canada, SNC-Lavalin employs roughly 9 000 people, globally that figure is closer to 50 000. The company has been and continues to be involved in major infrastructure projects in Canada.

Despite this, SNC-Lavalin’s reputation is not untarnished. Both within and outside of Canada, the company has been linked with many allegations of corruption in the past.

What brings SNC-Lavalin into the crosshairs of Canadian media as of late, is the company’s prosecution by Canada’s former Minister of Justice and Attorney General, Jody Wilson-Raybould.

The issue first came into the public sphere in early February, when the Globe and Mail reported that aides close to the Prime Minister tried to stop Wilson-Raybould’s prosecution and requested the company be given a “deferred prosecution agreement” instead. This is a relatively new avenue for dealing with corporate fraud, that was written into law in 2018 and it would allow SNC-Lavalin in this case to face fines rather than a trial. This would be preferable for the firm, as a conviction could result in a 10-year ban from bidding on government contracts.

Back in 2018, SNC-Lavalin was among the companies who lobbied for the deferred prosecution agreement to become law.

On Friday, the Federal Court rejected a bid by SNC-Lavalin that challenged prosecutors who insisted the company face trial over corruption charges which accuse the company of bribing Libyan officials between 2001 and 2011 in order to get contracts. The only hope for SNC-Lavalin to avoid trial now is to get the deferred prosecution agreement granted by the new Attorney General,    David Lametti, who replaced Wilson-Raybould following her demotion by Trudeau in January.

The true crux of the matter is the implication of Prime  Minister Trudeau and other top officials, which exploded onto the front pages of newspapers when Wilson-Raybould gave her testimony to the House of Commons Justice Committee on February 27, 2019.

In Wilson-Raybould’s testimony, she gave a detailed account of the many attempts by Trudeau and his top aides to dissuade her from pursuing prosecution against SNC-Lavalin. She has stated that she does not believe the actions of Trudeau or his aides to be illegal, but inappropriate.

Regardless of legality, the reputation of the Trudeau government has taken a significant hit. Political opponents are highlighting the stark contrast between Trudeau’s campaign speeches and his recent actions, with many calling into question his promise of a transparent government. Some have even questioned his claimed support of feminism following the testimony and resignation of Wilson-Raybould, and the resignation of Treasury Board President Jane Philpott.

The most outspoken critic has been Conservative leader, Andrew Scheer, who called for the Prime Minister to step down. The Guardian quotes Scheer, “He (Trudeau) can no longer, with a clear conscience, continue to lead this nation.”

SNC-Lavalin is viewed by many as the feather in the cap of Quebec. Of the company’s     9,000 Canadian employees, 3,400 are in Québec alone. This is important – the Liberals are leading in the polls in Québec – but they will require more seats in order to win the upcoming October election. If SNC-Lavalin is convicted and cuts jobs in Québec, it is possible that voters will hold Trudeau and the Liberals accountable.

Prime Minister Trudeau reflects his awareness of this crucial point by emphasizing that his pressures on Wilson-Raybould were based in his concern for Canadian jobs. His stance being that “our government will always focus on jobs and our economy,”  as reported in Chicago Tribune.

On March 7, Prime Minister Trudeau called a news conference in which he offered no apology but said that, “we considered she was still open to hearing different arguments, different approaches on what her decision could be. As we now learn ... that was not the case,” according to Reuters.Scheer called the speech “a completely phony act of fake sincerity” in the same article.

In addition to the resignations of two prominent female cabinet members, Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott, Trudeau’s closest political aide, Gerald Butts has also resigned.

With the federal election on the not-so-distant horizon, the SNC-Lavalin scandal may prove to be the fatal flaw in Trudeau’s governance.

HIV Patient in London Cured

Breakthrough leads to the second successful eradication of HIV from a patient

Researchers in London may have cured a man of HIV in the second documented case of prolonged HIV remission. The patient - called “the London patient” for confidentiality - was diagnosed with HIV in 2003, and began retroviral therapy in 2012; shortly thereafter, he was diagnosed with Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Hodgkin’s lymphoma is often resistant to chemotherapy, necessitating a complete bone marrow transplant. The transplant procedure involves radiation therapy to destroy the patient’s cancerous immune cells, followed by the regeneration of the immune system from the bone marrow tissue of a compatible donor. The treatment is toxic, and     often fails to result in complete remission; however, for many, it is the last line of defence against a ruthless disease. Once the transplant was complete and the London  patient had recovered, they  appeared to be HIV free.

HIV infects the immune cells of the host, entering through receptors present on the cell surface. In the early 2000’s, researchers discovered that some individuals were resistant to the disease due to the presence of a mutation in the cell surface receptor CCR5. After further investigation, it was revealed that some strains of the viral subtype HIV-1 exploit the CCR5 receptor for cell entry; the mutation resulted in the production of defective     receptors, preventing the virus from entering the immune cells. Researchers hypothesized that this receptor may someday be useful for the  treatment of HIV.

Fast-forward a decade, and their idea for a treatment has finally come to fruition - albeit not in the way they imagined. In an article published in 2009, a team of researchers reported that they had driven HIV into remission via a bone marrow transplant. The research team were treating a patient with both leukaemia and HIV when they proposed treating both diseases with a bone marrow transplant from a donor with the CCR5 mutation. The recipient, dubbed “the Berlin patient,” underwent complete bone marrow irradiation followed by the mutated bone marrow transplant. It appears as though the CCR5 mutant  immune cells completely replaced the patient’s original cells, thereby conferring resistance to the disease. The patient has remained in both cancerous and HIV remission since treatment.

The treatment has been attempted multiple times since the original publication without success. Researchers in London recently published results indicating they had  successfully eradicated both diseases in a second patient  using a similar method to that which was performed on the Berlin patient. The London patient arrested antiretroviral therapy 16 months post-op and has been in confirmed HIV remission for the past 18 months.

The results of both studies have demonstrated that the elimination of HIV – once thought to be incurable – is indeed possible. The risks of treatment for otherwise healthy individuals, however, almost certainly outweighs the benefits. As mentioned, the irradiation of an HIV patient’s bone marrow is toxic. Successful destruction of all host immune cells is usually tough to achieve, and the risk of secondary infection post-irradiation is high. Additionally, finding a matching bone marrow donor is a difficult endeavour under the best of circumstances; locating a matching donor with a CCR5 mutation is exponentially more troublesome. Unfortunately, the combination of risk and donor match rarity likely relegates this treatment to the realm of experimental medicine, and nothing more. For those patients who are concurrently infected with HIV and a cancer necessitating bone marrow transplantation, this treatment may be an option; however, the availability of donors with a mutated CCR5 gene may inhibit widespread application across HIV and cancer patients. For other HIV  patients, until a viable cure is discovered that involves less risk than bone marrow transplantation, antiretroviral      therapy will likely remain the prescribed course of treatment. Antiretrovirals are effective, inducing nominal side effects in the majority of patients while reducing HIV in the blood to undetectable levels.

Although the London and Berlin patients are not the blinding beacon of hope that some media outlets have described, they are important actors in the conversation    surrounding HIV, and medicine in a broader sense. 

A cure is generally touted as the goal of most disease research. When the cure risks causing symptoms far more severe than the pharmaceutically treated disease, however, our conversation requires a  recalibration. Cures are a  reductionist’s dream, eliminating the need for treatment beyond initial delivery. When the cure exists on the precipice between the experimental and the extreme, however, careful consideration must be used in determining the appropriate trade-off between risk and reward.