Student raises concerns with $4.2 million Studentcare contract
A $30 fee-levy for the Studentcare Legal Care Program will be included in the next CSU by-elections
At the last Concordia Student Union (CSU) Regular Council Meeting (RCM), student and ex-council member Dave Plant raised concerns with the Studentcare Legal Care Program (LCP).
On July 17, the CSU hosted a Special Council Meeting (SCM) where councillors unanimously voted in favour of implementing the LCP. The program offers students legal representation in areas such as housing, employment and human rights disputes, as well as legal consultations.
The LCP contract signed by the CSU came into effect Sept. 1, and the initial term will last until Dec. 31. In order for services to continue, students will have to vote in the upcoming Fall 2024 CSU by-elections in favour of extending the program for an additional three years and eight months.
The CSU chair sent the LCP contract to The Link in an email on Sept. 13.
The contract, if passed, will cost $30 per student per year, totalling $1,050,000 per year for 35,000 students and $4,200,000 over four years.
After four years, the contract would automatically renew unless the CSU provided Studentcare with a written notice stating otherwise 30 days prior to the end date of the contract.
Costs and fees
If passed at referendum, the CSU would use insurance surplus to pay for the initial four-month term of the Studentcare contract at the cost of $10 per student. The CSU would also renounce its right to unilaterally terminate the contract.
Insurance surplus refers to money that has been paid by students for their insurance, but has not been used. In the SCM minutes, CSU general coordinator Kareem Rahaman said that the CSU can only use the money in limited ways.
“We can either use it to reduce premiums—but we’ve already reduced the premium—or we can use it to subsidize other services and that’s what we’re trying to do here,” Rahaman said.
At the SCM, Rahaman also told councillors that “Studentcare offered to pay from Sept. 1 up until the referendum.”
However, according to the review letter commissioned by Plant, “The fee applicable for this initial term is $10 per student, for a total cost of $350,000. Assuming an approximate undergraduate student number enrolment of 35,000 members for the CSU.”
When The Link asked Rahaman to clarify this statement, he explained that he was referring to the fact that “[payment] isn’t going to come out of your pocket this semester, but you're going to receive [access to the LCP] this semester. So, it's deferred.”
The contract signed by the CSU states: “In the instance of the Referendum passing, the CSU would use accumulated Reserve Funds in order to cover the expenses of the program for the period of September-December 2024 at a pro-rated cost of $10.00 per Member including HST or until the new levy is introduced.”
According to the legal review, if students vote against the LCP at referendum, the CSU will still have to pay for the initial four-month term of the Studentcare contract, with the cost split between the union and Studentcare, totalling $175,000 dollars.
According to Rahaman, only students covered by the CSU Health and Dental Plan would account for the $10, making the total cost closer to $100,000. During the SCM, Rahaman told councillors that the CSU would take a “minor hit” in the event of a failure at referendum.
When a councillor at the RCM brought forward a question regarding the amount the CSU would lose if the referendum were to fail, Plant said, “Is $175,000 minor? I'll leave that to you to decide.”
Not an insurance product
At the RCM, Plant presented a legal review of the LCP contract that he had commissioned and motioned for the contract to be immediately cancelled.
One of his main concerns with the LCP is that, as opposed to the other services Studentcare offers through the CSU Health and Dental Plan, it is not an insurance product.
According to Plant, council members were running on false pretences and misinformation.
“Just through the minutes that got brought up in [the SCM], there are falsehoods. I think it's up to the executives to lay out, in layman’s terms, what the council members are voting for,” Plant said. “The only reason I understood how bad of a deal this was, is through a legal review of the contract.”
In the SCM minutes from July, Rahaman told council members prior to council voting on the LCP contract that “it’s an insurance product.”
Rahaman later clarified to The Link that he misspoke, as he is used to referring to the service as an insurance product colloquially.
Studentcare’s role
Other issues raised by Plant in both the RCM and legal review concern clauses assessing Studentcare’s role in the contract. The legal review outlines how Studentcare has sole discretion on selecting a law firm to deliver the LCP, Studentcare and its directors may become minority shareholders in the chosen law firm, and Studentcare is not responsible for the quality of the LCP.
When asked about why that was the case, Rahaman explained that “it's something we look at for sure. […] Every other university that's signing these contracts, we're all signing the same contract here. No issues [have] ever arisen from it.”
According to Studentcare representative Alexander Golovko, the service would be helpful for students at the university.
“We truly believe that the [LCP] would be a significant enhancement to the student experience at Concordia,” said Golovko. “Concordia students would be joining over 300,000 students covered by the program across the country.”
Rahaman made reference to the high level of satisfaction of the LCP in other universities in Quebec and Canada, including McGill. The Link has not been sent these statistics by the CSU in time for publication.
Current services
The CSU currently has its own services that provide students with help around topics like housing, employment, academic disputes and legal questions in the form of the Advocacy Centre, the Housing and Job Resource Centre (HOJO), and the Legal Information Clinic (LIC).
“I think people who go to Concordia enjoy these little services that are offered to them, like a stone's throw away,” Plant said. “LIC, HOJO, Advocacy Centre, you can just go into their offices, go and chat with them.”
Rahaman explained that Studentcare will work in tandem with existing CSU services to complement the coverage students already have.
Studentcare coverage
The legal review letter outlines that, according to the contract, the LCP does not offer representation to students who are otherwise already covered by a government agency or union. In the case of employment rights representation, areas already covered by the Commission des normes, de l’équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail (CNESST) are not covered by Studentcare.
CNESST already covers complaints relating to labour standards, pay equity, occupational health and safety, hazardous situations, and complaints concerning the contracting process.
Additionally, Studentcare does not offer human rights representation in situations where a student is already covered by the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse (CDPDJ).
Further concerns in legal review
According to information given by a councillor at the Sept. 18 RCM and confirmed by the chair, councillors were given 45 hours to read through and decipher the LCP contract and talk to their constituents before SCM in July. This is in line with existing CSU by-laws and procedures.
When the contract was presented to council, it had already been signed by CSU general manager Robert Henri three weeks prior.
According to Rahaman, Henri’s signature was meant only as a show of support, and the fully signed contract containing the signatures of Rahaman and CSU finance coordinator Souad El Ferjani was only sent to Studentcare after the motion to approve the contract was passed at the SCM.
The legal review also highlights that the LCP does not cover legal representation for immigration law, a field of law the letter claims is “very much in demand by the many international students who are members of the CSU.”
During the SCM, Rahaman told councillors, “You pay $30 in advance and you have access to a lawyer for housing and immigration law.” He later clarified with The Link that he was only referring to legal consultation.
At the RCM, councillors voted to create a standing committee to overview the contract. At the time of publication, the committee has not yet met.
A previous version of this article stated that the legal review letter highlights the LCP’s lack of legal representation for international law. In fact, the legal review highlights the lack of representation for immigration law. The Link regrets this error.
This article originally appeared in Volume 45, Issue 3, published October 1, 2024.
_600_375_90_s_c1.jpg)
