Information requests ‘abusive:’ Mcgill

University seeks to discard applications it argues are linked to protest movement

McGill University has filed a motion with the Access to Information Commission trying to put a stop to a barrage of information requests that officials say have become abusive and unreasonable and hinder the university’s ability to operate.

The unusual move has antagonized students on campus who have been involved in the access-to-information requests and say they are legitimately seeking infor- mation to better understand the university’s connection to such activities as military research and mining investments.

McGill’s motion seeks permission to disregard requests already made as well as future requests by the respondents, student journalists or others linked to them. Students argue it would give the university near-total discretion to ignore access requests.

“I’m very surprised and disappointed they’re doing something like this,” said Christopher Bangs, an eco- nomics student at McGill who also created the website that reveals documents obtained through access to information.

He acknowledges that much of the information sought “would not be favourable to the university.”

The motion lists 14 respondents, and asks for permission to disregard requests deemed improper because of their number and systematic nature.

According to the motion, McGill believes “the requests are specifically formulated not only for the purpose of gathering material for publication on the McGilliLeaked website but essentially as a retaliation measure against McGill in the aftermath of the 2011-12 student protests.”

Furthermore, it goes on to say “attempts by McGill to respond to the requests have resulted in serious impediments to its activities.”

A McGill spokeswoman, Julie Fortier, said the requests are “very wide in scope” and require hours and hours of research.

And although those named in the motion don’t account for all the access requests at McGill, she said, the university mysteriously jumped to having 170 requests in 2012 from 37 in 2011, and noted that a number of the respondents “are associated with the protest movement on campus.”

The request will require a hearing. No date has been set.

Mona Luxion, a PhD stu- dent in urban planning named in the motion, said the information the students were seeking, independently of each other although they are named together in the motion, was about budget transparency, possible affiliations with weapons development, and investments in fossil fuels.

“None of which is related to last year’s protests,” she said.

McGill argues in the motion that, starting last October, there was “a new wave of access-to-infor mation requests pertaining to extremely wide matters such as all military and fossil fuels research conducted at McGill, all documents related to the Plan Nord.”

Therefore, McGill concludes the requests are “abusive” because the scope of information requested is unreasonable and McGill doesn’t have the resources to process them.

But to the students involved, it’s an example of McGill’s attempting to stifle dissent on campus and, like the university’s controversial attempt to create a protest protocol, to silence its students.

“The university is handling this in a very heavy-handed way,” Luxion said. “It’s intimidating, and not just for the people named in the motion, but for all students and student media as well.”