Wednesday, May 13, 2026

The Clerk to Senate, Mr Christopher Eaton, announced that a call for nominations had been issued for the position of Vice-Chair of Senate for a term of no more than one year, pursuant to Section 37(1)(a) of the University Act and Section 7 of the Rules and Procedures of the Vancouver Senate. The Clerk noted that, in response to the call for nominations, Senators Jasper Lorien and Wendy Norman were nominated as candidates. Each candidate was invited to speak in support of their candidacy before the election was conducted. Senator Lorien noted that they had served three terms on Senate as a Student At-Large. They explained that their experience chairing the Agenda Committee and a working group of the Academic Policy Committee reinforced the importance of facilitating fair, equitable, and collegial decision-making. They expressed their interest in serving as Vice-Chair and their intention to build on that experience if elected. The President noted that Senator Norman was experiencing technical difficulties and proposed proceeding with consideration of the minutes of the April 15 meeting while the connection issue was addressed. The President indicated that the meeting would return to Senator Norman’s remarks once the technical difficulties were resolved. The Clerk invited Senator Wendy Norman to speak in support of her candidacy and background for the role of Vice-Chair of Senate. Senator Wendy Norman noted her experience as a Faculty Representative of the Faculty of Medicine, Professor in the Department of Family Practice, Interim Department Head, Chair of the Senate Research and Scholarship Committee, and member of the Agenda Committee. Senator Norman highlighted her interest in governance and process and said she would support fair and effective Senate processes to enable Senators to make decisions in support of the University. The Clerk indicated that voting would be conducted by online poll, with paper ballots available for members in attendance in the room. The Clerk noted that voting would take place during the meeting and that results would be announced following tabulation. He also advised that each Senator could submit only one ballot. The Clerk reported the results of the election conducted during the meeting and announced the election of Senator Wendy Norman as Vice-Chair of Senate for the next year.

The Chair of the Senate Agenda Committee, Senator Jasper Lorien, provided an overview of the Agenda Committee’s response to the referral from the previous Senate meeting. They reported that the Committee met twice, including a joint meeting with the Provost’s Working Group on Global Partnerships, and agreed on a plan and timeline. Senator Lorien explained that the working group would continue its work over the summer. They noted that the process would include consultations with the Admissions Committee, the proponents of the motion, and other relevant parties. Senator Lorien also reported that no affiliation agreements were expected to be renewed during that period and indicated that Senate would consider the recommendations in September or October. Senator Charles Menzies asked whether the matter would return to Senate in its current form or as separate motions. He also asked whether the review would consider the University’s broader international partnerships in jurisdictions with human rights concerns and whether a comprehensive process would inform any future motion brought before Senate. Senator Lorien replied that they could not comment on the substance of specific matters but noted that the working group’s objective was to develop a consistent set of principles to guide consideration of international partnerships. They said the work would address the matters raised in the current referral as well as broader topics raised in previous discussions. The Provost, Dr Gage Averill, added that the working group would bring its principles as recommendations to Senate. He noted that the recommendations would be considered by the Senate Admissions Committee and Senate as a whole, and that Senate would make the decisions rather than the working group. Senator Toph Marshall noted that, at a previous Senate meeting, a proposal to call a Special Meeting was not adopted. He noted that, following the referral of the matter to committee, its consideration would consequently not occur until the next triennium in the fall. Senator Sarah Kamal thanked the Agenda Committee and the Provost’s Working Group on Global Partnerships, and requested clarification on how student feedback and representation would be incorporated into the process. Senator Lorien noted that Senate had voted to refer the motion and explained that consultations would precede any recommendations returned to Senate. They also highlighted the procedural mechanisms available for members to bring the matter before Senate. The President expressed appreciation for the discussion and noted that a process was in place. He indicated that the matter would return for consideration at an appropriate time.

The President thanked Senators for their time, contributions, and commitment to supporting the University. He noted the accomplishments of Senate during the year and triennium and thanked outgoing Senators for their service. The President recognized Senator Paul Harrison and Senator John Gilbert for their longstanding service to Senate. He also thanked the Senate staff, particularly the Clerk, for their professionalism and support.

The President provided an update on the cybersecurity incident involving Instructure, the provider of Canvas. He noted that the incident was not a university cybersecurity breach but had affected Canvas users, including the University. The President advised that the University was awaiting further security assurances from Instructure before restoring access to the University community and acknowledged the impact on faculty and students during the Summer Term. He reported that Instructure had advised that affected data had been returned securely and that data destruction had been confirmed, while the University continued to monitor the situation. The President thanked UBC IT, cybersecurity, Teaching and Learning, and operational teams for their work in responding to the incident. The President provided an update on advocacy activities undertaken with provincial and federal governments. He noted that discussions had focused on the University’s role in British Columbia and Canada, international student caps and visas, research funding, academic infrastructure funding, housing, and the proposed Millennium Line UBC Extension. The President congratulated graduates approved for Spring Convocation and noted that 10,528 graduates from the Vancouver campus and 2,117 graduates from UBC Okanagan would be recognized. Senator Ben Britton asked whether the University had a technology or learning technology disruption policy. Senator Britton encouragement for developing such a policy. Senator Britton raised considerations regarding reliance on major technology platforms and noted potential risks associated with technology disruptions. He also discussed concerns related to Canadian data sovereignty, control of software platforms, and implications of the US CLOUD Act, including data tenancy, data location, encryption, and encryption key management. Senator Britton recommended that Senate provide input into the development of a technology disruption policy and establish principles to support governance considerations, increase robustness, and reduce disruption impacts for faculty, students, and staff. The Provost responded that the development of a technology disruption policy would be considered. He acknowledged the concerns regarding reliance on a single technology platform and noted that the University regularly considered Requests for Proposals for other services as agreements expired. The Provost confirmed that university data was resident in Canada but recognized that United States laws and policies could create implications. He noted that encryption could provide support while also presenting additional considerations and indicated that Canadian alternatives were considered where possible. Senator Charles Menzies commented on the cybersecurity incident and acknowledged the work done in responding to the disruption. He noted that, despite concerns regarding reliance on a single platform, the University was able to adapt effectively and that support provided to instructors was valuable. The Provost recognized the teams involved in responding to the cybersecurity incident. Senator Laura Moss reported that the Senate Teaching and Learning Committee had met and had received a briefing from Drs Elisa Baniassad and Simon Bates regarding the cybersecurity incident. Senator Moss noted the importance of technology continuity and reliability for academic activities and highlighted the need for systems that could account for potential failures. Senator Moss discussed the need for robust tools, recovery planning, and alternative platforms or course options to support teaching and learning continuity. Senator Bryan Buraga asked whether, following completion of the investigation into the cybersecurity incident, an email similar to the initial breach notification could be sent to students outlining when information was compromised, what information may have been affected, and steps students could take to safeguard their data moving forward. …

Senator Lo requested leave from the Senate to present four reports as an omnibus motion. Senator Jasper Lorien requested division of the motion to consider the Revisions to Academic Regulations for Recognition of Academic Achievement for the Faculty of Science: Bachelor of Science separately. By general consent, Revisions to Academic Regulations for Recognition of Academic Achievement for the Faculty of Science: Bachelor of Science, was considered separately. Senator Jasper Lorien expressed opposition to the proposed revisions. They noted that the Diversionary Option allowed students and the University to work toward an appropriate resolution in cases involving minor first offences or circumstances where academic expectations may not have been clear. Senator Lorien expressed concerns about the potential impacts of the proposed revisions on students. Senator Lo responded that the matter had been considered by the Committee. He explained that, given the designations recognized high levels of academic achievement, the proposed revisions reflected an expectation of academic integrity. Senator Lo noted that students found by the President to have committed academic misconduct, or students who admitted to academic misconduct and entered the Diversionary Option, would be ineligible for these designations.

Senator Ben Britton asked about a change regarding interim examinations. He noted that “major examination” had been removed and replaced with an assessment conducted during class time or scheduled out-of-class time during the teaching terms. He inquired whether this change would have significant implications for assessment practices, including concessions and accommodations, and whether it would result in broader effects on student assessment. Senator Kin Lo responded that the terminology had been discussed in committee. He explained that the term “major examination” had been considered ambiguous because it was unclear how to distinguish between major and minor examinations. He noted that the wording had therefore been revised to refer to an assessment held during class time.

Senator Lo reminded Senate that the accompanying memorandum had been provided with the proposed policy and recalled that Senate had last considered the draft policy in May 2025. He explained that the Senate Academic Policy Committees on both campuses had committed to returning a final draft following a period of feedback received in May and June 2025. He noted that the committees had originally expected to return the draft in September 2025 but had required additional time to address topics raised during the consultation process. Senator Lo explained that the draft policy reflected the legal constraints under which Senate and the University operated and distinguished between provisions that could be included in policy and those that were aspirational. He referred to recent developments affecting institutional autonomy in jurisdictions outside Canada and observed that, while such developments should be resisted, a Senate policy could not override legislative changes affecting the University’s autonomy under the University Act. Senator Lo reported that the draft policy modernized the language of the 1977 Statement on Academic Freedom while retaining its key elements. He noted that the 1977 Statement on Academic Freedom remained a statement rather than a policy and explained that the development of a policy had been the objective of the current process over the previous seven years. He added that proposed language had been introduced in response to feedback received during the previous summer and clarified the right to institutional critique. Senator James Stewart made a motion to postpone consideration of the item to allow additional time for further consideration of the proposed policy.

Senator James Stewart made a motion to postpone consideration of the item to allow additional time for further consideration of the proposed policy. Senator Stewart commented on the policy and its broader implications for the institution and beyond. He recommended that members engage in further debate, discussion, and community engagement before adopting the proposed change. Senator Stewart noted that members had between two and six days to review the materials, depending on when they accessed them. He explained that some members had limited time to prepare their contributions to the discussion and referred to recent external commentary related to the motion. He recommended that additional time be provided for consideration of the motion. Senator Charles Menzies commented on the consultation process related to the motion. He noted that requests for further consultation had been raised in previous discussions and observed that the policy development process had occurred over several years rather than only during the previous six days. Senator Menzies indicated that he did not support the document in its current form. He compared the proposed document with the 1977 Statement on Academic Freedom and commented that he considered the earlier version more comprehensive and relevant to the current context. Senator Jasper Lorien referred to recommendations from the external review and noted the value of discussing substantive policy matters before bringing forward a motion for approval at a subsequent meeting. Senator Lorien commented that members had limited time to review the current version of the policy and indicated that further discussion would be beneficial. Senator Lorien noted that they were not prepared to vote on the policy in its current form. Senator Ben Britton noted that although he had reviewed the materials six days earlier, he had not had sufficient time to consult with constituents or prepare his comments. He noted that endof-semester responsibilities and committee reporting obligations had limited his available time. He acknowledged the work of both committees in advancing the process. Senator Toph Marshall noted that similar requests for additional time, feedback, and consultation had been raised at the May meeting of the previous year and indicated that these opportunities had since been provided. Senator Stewart responded to comments from other Senators and acknowledged the differing views expressed. He noted that the proposed version of the document differed materially from previous versions under consideration.

Senator Joanne Fox reported that Policy J-50: Secondary School Grade Adjustments for Undergraduate Admission had been applied to applicants following the Alberta secondary school curriculum. She noted that, for admission to the 2026 Winter Session, grades presented for admission had been adjusted upwards by 4% in accordance with the policy. Senator Fox reported that the committee had brought forward 26 proposals for approval and had made 21 editorial updates to the calendar under delegated authority. She reported that 134 admissions appeals had been reviewed between May 1, 2025 and April 30, 2026, of which four had been allowed. Senator Fox noted that the committee was reviewing its appeals processes in accordance with recommendations from the external review. Senator Fox referred to the student mobility agreements approved under the Council of Senates Policy C-2: Affiliations with Other Institutions of Learning. She thanked committee members for their contributions during the year and acknowledged those involved in hearing admissions appeals during the summer months. Senator Fox also recognized the support provided to the Committee by Amandeep Breen and Leah Wafler of the Senate Office. Senator Sarah Kamal asked about the renewal of exchange partnerships, specifically the listing for Hebrew University of Jerusalem in Israel. She noted that members of the Student Senate Caucus had raised concerns about student safety in relation to mobility agreements. Senator Joanne Fox responded noted that the principles being developed by the Provost’s Working Group, which were expected to return to Senate, would address safety considerations. Senator Fox explained that exchange agreements involving locations subject to travel advisories from Global Affairs Canada were not used for student travel where safety concerns had been identified. She noted that Global Affairs Canada travel advisories were the measure used for assessing these circumstances. Senator Kamal asked whether the item concerning the specific partnership could be deferred given the concerns raised by students. Senator Fox clarified that the item was for information and reported on affiliation agreements that had been renewed or initiated during the reporting period. Senator Jasper Lorien asked about the process for addressing agreements approved under delegated authority if Senate disagreed with an agreement. The Clerk explained that the matter was more complex because the delegated authority had been granted by the Council of Senates. The Clerk noted that the agreement had been executed by the University and that provisions existed for withdrawal. The Clerk explained that there was no action available to Senate in this forum at that time.

Senator Burr reported that the Committee had met seven times during the year, reviewed recommendations from the triennial review, and finalized governance recommendations for the Nominating Committee. He also reported that the committee had reviewed Senate Policy V200: Student Awards and approved a draft policy for consultation, with a report to return to Senate in fall 2026. Senator Burr also reported that the committee had approved 19 proposals under delegated authority, including 17 annual awards and two internal awards. He thanked committee members for their contributions and Bradley Menard of the Senate Office for his support and guidance during the triennium.

The Chair of the Senate Budget and Academic Buildings Committee, Mr Mitchell Prost, presented. Senator Prost reported that the committee had discussed Campus Vision 2050, the Climate Action Plan, decarbonization, discretionary business travel emissions, AI infrastructure planning, campus electrical capacity, GPU deployment for research support, budget updates, and capital planning priorities. Senator Prost noted that the committee had discussed priorities for the next triennium, including opportunities to support university budget preparation and research funding. He thanked committee members for their contributions and recognized Bradley Menard of the Senate Office for his support to the committee.

Senator Gopalakrishnan reported that delegated authority had been used for editorial and minor changes to programs and courses, including adjustments to prerequisites and restrictions to improve student access. Senator Gopalakrishnan reported that the committee had reviewed course offerings and found that approximately 2,200 of the University’s courses had not been offered in the previous 10 years. He noted that the committee would encourage Faculties to review inactive courses and consider courses with low enrolment levels. He also noted that the committee would consider ways to improve the visibility of non-credit credentials and certificate programs. Senator Gopalakrishnan thanked committee members and acknowledged the support provided by Senate Office staff, including Jessica Iverson, Leah Wafler, and Trini Tseng. He also thanked the Clerk to Senate for his support to the committee. Joint Report of the Academic Policy, Admissions, and Curriculum Committees. The Chair of the Senate Curriculum Committee, Dr Sathish Gopalakrishnan, presented.

The Chair of the Senate Library Committee, Dr Elisa Baniassad, presented. Senator Baniassad presented the Senate Library Committee annual report. She reported that the committee had met eight times during the 2025-2026 academic year and had focused on advising and assisting the University Librarian, including work related to the transition of the University Librarian role. Senator Baniassad reported that committee members had contributed to amendments to Policy UP11: Deaccessioning Policy, participated in the President’s Advisory Committee for the Selection of a University Librarian, and developed metrics for the University Librarian’s monthly reports. Senator Baniassad thanked committee members for their contributions and acknowledged Dr Susan Parker’s eight years of service to the Senate Library Committee and the UBC Library. She welcomed Dr Dale Askey as the incoming University Librarian and thanked those who contributed their expertise and time to the Library. Senator Baniassad also recognized Leah Wafler of the Senate Office for her support of the Committee. The President expressed appreciation to Dr Parker for her service as University Librarian and recognized her contributions to the University.

Senator Britton reported that the review included feedback from the university community, Senators, Senate committees, and committee chairs, and resulted in recommendations regarding changes to the composition and terms of reference of Senate committees, including the merger of the Senate Library Committee and Senate Teaching and Learning Committee into the Senate Teaching, Learning, and Library Committee, effective September 1, 2026. Senator Britton explained that the merger recognized the relationship between library services and the academic mission of the University. He noted that the new committee structure increased student representation and recommended that the new committee review its terms of reference following its establishment. Senator Laura Moss spoke regarding the proposed establishment of the Teaching, Learning, and Library Committee. She noted that the Teaching and Learning Committee had met earlier that day to discuss the merger and supported the proposal. She identified substantial overlap between the committees but raised questions regarding workload and the potential deferral of important issues. She noted that the Teaching and Learning Committee provided an opportunity for indepth discussion and expressed concern that adding another committee within the same timeframe could limit the ability to address matters thoroughly. She indicated that, while considering workload implications, the Teaching and Learning Committee supported the merger. Senator Richard Spencer commented on the report’s recommendation that no changes be made to the Academic Policy Committee. He noted that the External Review of Senate had recommended significant changes and that the committee’s work had focused primarily on implementing policy through changes to academic regulations rather than addressing significant academic policy matters. He indicated that he hoped future consideration would be given to the role of the Academic Policy Committee. The University Librarian, Senator Susan Parker, identified the Library’s role in supporting teaching, learning, research, and scholarship, and noted that library matters extended across the University. She indicated that the proposed committee merger could provide benefits while noting the importance of maintaining opportunities for in-depth discussion of issues and reviewing the committee’s work during the next triennium. Senator Santokh Singh commented on the proposed merger and noted that the Library Committee had a unique role that did not fit within a single combined committee due to its connections with other areas, including research. He indicated that the Library Committee’s independent status allowed it to address library-specific matters and noted that he preferred it to remain a separate committee with revised terms of reference. Senator Francis Andrew commented on the proposed merger and noted the importance of maintaining a Senate committee with Library in its name. He noted that library matters extended beyond teaching and learning, including university-wide activities, new technologies, and national and international developments. Senator Britton noted that the Teaching and Learning Committee supported the motion and that Senator Parker, University Librarian, also supported it. In response to comments regarding academic policy, he advised that governance matters would be considered during discussion of the external review. He explained that the current item concerned the substantive changes to the committees’ Terms of Reference and membership.

Senator Ben Britton noted that the external review identified opportunities for Senate to continue strengthening its approach to governance within its areas of responsibility and its engagement with other governance bodies. He noted that governance planning would be an important consideration for committees at the beginning of the next triennium. Senator Britton discussed the review’s observations regarding Senate appeals processes. He explained that the Admissions, Appeals on Academic Standing, and Student Appeals of Discipline Committees each had distinct responsibilities and recognized the substantial work undertaken through the appeals process. He reported that work had been underway since the external review to consider opportunities for improvement. Senator Britton advised that the response included actions to support the effectiveness of the appeals processes handled by the Appeals on Academic Standing and Student Appeals of Discipline Committees while continuing to operate within the University’s governance framework. He noted that the quasi-judicial nature of the appeals process required consultation to inform potential policy or process updates. Senator Britton highlighted the scope of work undertaken by Senate committees and the Senate Office. He reported that the Vancouver Senate had considered 1,248 curriculum proposals, each requiring substantial review. He noted that the report provided an overview of the breadth of work undertaken by the Secretariat and was intended to illustrate the range of activities supporting Senate. Senator Britton noted that consideration of resources included both Senate Office support and the structures that enable Senate governance. He reported that the Nominating Committee and the Agenda Committee had brought forward motions related to governance structures for consideration. Senator Britton also recognized the time and commitment contributed by Faculty, Student, Convocation, and Ex Officio Senators. He noted that the complexity of Senate’s work required sufficient opportunities for consideration, consultation, and understanding of governance processes. He added that the committee had identified actions to support Senate’s continued effectiveness in carrying out its governance responsibilities. Senator Jasper Lorien noted that the Agenda Committee supported the recommendations regarding Senate Office resourcing and reported that the committee had recommended a joint meeting with the Budget and Academic Buildings Committee to discuss the matter. Senator Lorien also discussed the recommendation regarding topics of broad economic interest. Senator Lorien reported that the Agenda Committee had discussed the matter and agreed on a process for moving this work forward. Senator Lorien advised that additional information would be circulated and that materials would be prepared for the incoming Agenda Committee in the upcoming triennium.

The Chair of the Senate Teaching and Learning Committee, Dr Laura Moss, presented. Senator Moss expressed appreciation to the members of the committee and recognized their contributions to the Committee’s work. She noted that the committee provided an opportunity for in-depth discussion on matters related to teaching and learning, including artificial intelligence, evaluations of teaching, and the integrated evaluation of teaching. Senator Moss reported that the Committee had met with 10 groups during the year and appreciated their contributions and engagement. She noted that the committee’s mandate was to provide a leading forum for discussion of the teaching and learning environment at the University and indicated that the committee had fulfilled this role through discussion, deliberation, and debate. Senator Moss noted the importance of teaching and learning to the University’s academic mission and noted that the committee had engaged substantively with relevant issues. She expressed appreciation to Lindsey Kovacevic of the Senate Office for her support. Senator Moss noted that the report included several recommendations and advised that these reflected broader recommendations and discussions undertaken by the committee throughout the year.

Senator Gilbert recognized members who had received emeritus status and noted that they would join the UBC Emeritus College. He described the College as a unique institution in Canada and acknowledged the support provided by the President and the Provost and Vice-President, Academic. He also recognized Senator Paul Harrison’s previous role as Principal of the Emeritus College. Senator Gilbert thanked the Tributes Committee members for their collaborative work and noted that the committee sought to make thoughtful decisions regarding honorary degrees. He encouraged Senators to submit nominations when opportunities arose. Senator Gilbert expressed appreciation for the Clerk of Senate’s guidance and contributions to the Committee’s work. He also acknowledged Amandeep Breen of the Senate Office for her support and assistance with the Committee’s activities.

The Registrar, Dr Rella Ng, presented. The Registrar advised Senate that pursuant to Section 15 of the University Act, that the following faculty members were acclaimed as elected as representatives on the Vancouver Senate for terms beginning on September 1, 2026 and ending August 31, 2029 and thereafter until successors are elected:  Benjamin Goold, Professor, Peter A. Allard School of Law  Minghao Li, Associate Professor, Faculty of Forestry and Environmental Stewardship  Anubhav Pratap-Singh, Associate Professor, Faculty of Land and Food Systems  Candice Rideout, Professor of Teaching, Faculty of Land and Food Systems  Althea Thauberger, Associate Professor, Faculty of Arts. The Registrar advised Senate that pursuant to Section 16 of the University Act, that the following faculty members were acclaimed as elected as representatives on the Vancouver Senate for terms beginning on September 1, 2026 and ending August 31, 2029 and thereafter until successors are elected:  Susan Forwell, Professor, Faculty of Medicine  Dustin Garnet, Associate Professor, Faculty of Education. The Registrar noted that an election was required for the Faculty of Applied Science, with polls scheduled from April 29 to May 13, 2026. She further noted that a call for nominations for the remaining Joint Faculties and Faculty positions would be issued in mid-May 2026.

Senator Martin Hirst commented that graduate students were central to the University’s research, teaching, and innovation activities. He clarified that his comments did not oppose increasing graduate student stipends, but focused on ensuring that any changes were implemented in a sustainable and equitable manner. Senator Hirst explained that graduate funding at the University had developed through a distributed model across programs and Faculties, reflecting disciplinary contexts, research funding environments, tuition structures, and training timelines. He recognized the efforts of programs that had increased graduate student support through various approaches over time. Senator Hirst raised considerations regarding the proposed policy and funding model, including potential impacts on equity among programs and on programs that had already increased student support. He identified factors including differences between master’s and doctoral programs, doctoral completion timelines, tuition structures, and potential impacts on graduate enrolment. Senator Hirst described the proposed ad hoc committee as a mechanism for institutional oversight, consultation across Faculties and disciplines, examination of relevant data, and development of principles to support the distribution of graduate student support. Senator Hirst commented that the proposed policy represented a significant change affecting students, supervisors, departments, research capacity, and institutional competitiveness. He recommended continued review through a transparent and consultative Senate process. Dean Shannon Hagerman described the new graduate funding program and its focus on supporting Doctor of Philosophy students through a minimum funding package intended to support academic success and well-being. She commented that the new funding threshold represented a significant change for the University and that implementation would require consideration of program- and discipline-specific contexts. Dean Hagerman explained that the Graduate Awards and Scholarships Committee, a subcommittee of Graduate Council, had been working on implementation matters since the announcement of the program. She described the committee’s membership, including representation from disciplinary Faculties, associate deans, directors, and graduate students, and outlined its mandate to evaluate the impact of new initiatives and policies on the graduate community and to develop and review funding allocation models. Dean Hagerman reported that the Graduate Awards and Scholarships Committee had met twice since the announcement of the program and that the Chair had provided updates to the Council of Deans and Graduate Council. She advised that the committee was available to provide updates to Senate as appropriate. Dean Hagerman described the committee’s work across two phases. She explained that the first phase focused on readiness for September, including the increase to the four-year fellowship and the Supplemental Graduate Student Support Initiative to support students below the funding threshold. She reported that the second phase would include a review of graduate funding mechanisms and allocation models, as well as consultation regarding master’s funding and fifthyear doctoral support. Dean Hagerman reported that the Graduate Awards team in the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies had been working with Faculties and programs to support the transition, including through the provision of student-level funding data and forecasting tools. She added that the Chair of the committee, with support from the Awards team, had held two universitywide town halls to address emerging questions and provide support, with a third session planned.

Senator Steven Pelech discussed his experience with the Experimental Medicine graduate program and his previous support for establishing minimum stipends for master’s and graduate students. He raised considerations regarding the impact of grant funding conditions, inflation, and differences in available resources among Faculties in supporting graduate students. Senator Pelech also raised a question regarding the sustainability of the funding, noting his understanding that it was a one-time top-up and seeking clarification on how ongoing support would be maintained. The Provost clarified that the funding contribution was ongoing rather than a one-time contribution. He reported that the University was providing approximately $9 million in permanent funding to support graduate student funding costs. The Provost commented that Senate had interests in the matter. He suggested that Senate consider referring the matter to existing standing committees rather than establishing an ad hoc committee. Senator Jasper Lorien commented on the proposed delegation of authority to the Nominating Committee and raised considerations regarding the committee composition and the opportunity for Senate to discuss the matter directly. Senator Lorien noted that the Nominating Committee did not include graduate Student Senators and commented that committee composition was an important consideration for matters of this nature. Senator Lorien also noted the potential duplication of existing work and acknowledged the work of the Graduate Awards and Scholarships Committee. The President inquired whether referring the motion to an existing committee, with instructions from Senate regarding implementation and reporting to Senate, would address the intended objectives. Senator Martin Hirst indicated that this approach would meet the objectives of the motion, provided that the committee provided oversight and reported its findings back to Senate. The President asked Senator Wendy Norman whether she would be prepared to accept this responsibility as Chair of the Research and Scholarships Committee. Senator Wendy Norman responded that the Research and Scholarships Committee would support the decision of Senate. Dean Hagerman requested clarification regarding how the motion, if passed, would affect the ongoing work of the Graduate Awards and Scholarships Committee, noting that the committee included representation from all Faculties and graduate students and was actively engaged in its work. The President responded that, in his view, the motion would not affect the Graduate Awards and Scholarships Committee’s ongoing work. He encouraged the Research and Scholarships Committee to engage with the Graduate Awards and Scholarships Committee currently undertaking the work. The Clerk sought clarification regarding the wording of the motion to refer, asking whether Senate would refer the motion to the Senate Research and Scholarship Committee and direct the committee to report back to Senate with its findings and recommendations by December 2026. By general consent, the revision to the motion to refer, adding that the Senate Research and Scholarship Committee report back to Senate with its findings and recommendations by December 2026, was approved. Senator Jenny Phelps inquired whether the Research and Scholarship Committee was expected to undertake the work related to quality assurance and policy implementation, or whether the Graduate Awards and Scholarships Committee would report to the Research and Scholarship Committee and would have reporting responsibility to Senate.