On Monday last week (March 3), I had the pleasure of sitting down with Chris Vincent, the LSU’s External Affairs Coordinator, to talk about his recent lobbying trip to Victoria. Along with representatives from several other student unions from the Lower Mainland, he discussed a five issue document written by members of UBC’s Alma Mater Society (AMS) with government and opposition MLAs. There was also discussion about creating a new student lobbying organization at the provincial level.
The trip started on Sunday, February 24, with a day of lobbying training. Representatives from the AMS, UBC’s Graduate Student Society (GSS), the Student Society of the University College of the Fraser Valley, the Kwantlen Student Society, and the LSU met to discuss and agree to the lobbying document written by the AMS and learn how to convince MLAs of the points they were trying to get across.
The lobbying document discusses issues in five broad categories, and states several specific positions in each category. I’ve reproduced the specific positions here.
Monday and Tuesday were taken up with lobbying various MLAs. Chris reported that the student lobbyists were well received, saying the MLAs asked a lot of good questions and “seemed interested and engaged.”There was also discussion among the representatives of the student unions about forming a new local, provincial and federal lobbying organization, which will discuss student’s concerns and ideas with decision makers. The constitution and bylaws of what will eventually govern the new lobby group when it is registered as a society have been largely drafted by the AMS’ Matt Naylor and Stef Ratjen. Since the society has not yet been officially formed, the founding unions are still discussing exactly what provisions will go into those documents. Later in March, a meeting will be held at Kwantlen College to hammer out the final details. Until that point, I have no way of knowing what specific provisions they are thinking of including. (Chris and Matt have been unwilling to give many specifics, though the fees that each student union will pay are one area of discussion; they still need to figure out a structure that will be fair to the various kinds and sizes of post-secondary institutions in BC.)
Chris was clear that he wants the new organization, which as yet does not have a name, to create its policies on a consensus basis among the various unions involved so that bigger schools and the society’s staff members don’t dominate it. This sounds like a positive way of advocating for our collective interests, that may help this organization escape some of the problems associated with other lobbying organizations. How policy is set is of particular interest to me, because although I agree with many of the proposals from the AMS drafted document that was the subject of the Victoria lobbying trip, some of the particular statements of principle seem odd to me. They don’t necessarily serve the interests of Langara Students. For instance, liquor policy (section 5, principle c) isn’t all that important to Langara students since we’re a commuter campus with no residences, and currently no liquor establishments. Chris did say that the Age of Majority question is wider than that of safe access to alcohol, because currently British Columbians under the age of nineteen cannot establish credit without a co-signatory. He wants eighteen year olds from B.C. to be on par with other students across Canada in terms this important financial milestone, and said lowering the age of majority would accomplish this. However, in the AMS document that he gave me, this issue is framed in terms of alcohol. Meanwhile, other areas of interest to college students, like the problems faced by part time students in getting funding and balancing work and school, seem to be notably absent. This is, of course, a minor quibble. Students will have to pick their battles and set their priorities for lobbying; this will have to be done democratically through the processes created by the new lobby organization, and once the process is in place, the LSU should be able to get college specific issues on the agenda. I think this new lobbying organization has a lot of potential to accomplish that.
Another question that came up during my discussion with Chris was the timetable for ratifying the organization’s bylaws and gaining entry into it. Chris said that representatives from each of the founding student unions (AMS, GSS, LSU, UCFV and Kwantlen student societies) will be completing the bylaws at a meeting to be held near the end of March. (Other schools may join later). After the society is registered, each student union will have a referendum asking students whether they want their society to join. Chris said that the LSU will probably hold its referendum at the same time as its fall election in September or October of this year. Funding from the LSU would probably come from the SIAC fund, which is a fund set aside from student fees for lobbying; Chris said this would be a good use of student funds that are already being collected, because it would help us have a stronger collective voice with other schools in the province.
All these are promising developments, and I’m looking forward to finding out more when the constitution and bylaws for the society are completed.
LSU meeting.
