Beverage agreement opposers miss benefits of supporting the plebiscite

On March 4 and 5, during the Students’ Union election, university students will have the opportunity to vote on a plebiscite question regarding the University of Alberta’s single-source cold beverage agreement, which expires this July.

Those advocating for a “yes” vote claim that signing another single source agreement will only benefit students. The proposed conditions of the new agreement include: $3 million in scholarships, $500,000 to be directed at student priorities and an on-going commitment to sustainability. The new agreement will also continue to be a 10-year term.

Those opposing the renewal of the single-source cold beverage agreement are focusing more on the sustainable aspect of the agreement. They’re claiming it will force the university into a 10-year contract with a corporation that contributes to the commodification of water. Water is a basic human right and therefore should be accessible for all students. They also heavily support the University of Alberta becoming a water bottle free campus.

But those opposing the single-source cold beverage agreement are completely missing the point. If the Students’ Union chooses not to sign the agreement, nothing is stopping the university from signing one of their own. Sure, the Students’ Union has the opportunity to seek out their own individual concessions that focus on sustainability, but this still leaves them with the potential to lose out on the monetary benefits. Benefits that will not only help students in the changing climate of tuition costs, but also help fund valuable SU programs and keep staff employed.

If we’re going to address the sustainability aspect of the proposed agreement, I think it’s crucial to also address the social aspects of sustainability. The University of Alberta has a large population of international students and for many of them, drinking the tap water in their home countries is unsafe. It’s selfish and shortsighted to just expect those students to deal with the culture shock of drinking the tap water here. If water is a basic human right and should therefore be accessible to all students, is it not important for that access to also be culturally appropriate?

One of the conditions of the proposed agreement is an “ongoing commitment to sustainability.” As of right now, because the plebiscite is non-binding, there are no concrete terms on what this commitment looks like. Therefore, it’s wrong to say that voting “yes” means throwing away all regard for environmental concerns. Instead, I think this is an opportunity for the campus community to really define what sustainability looks like to them. If the university and the SU do sign a joint agreement, students will have the chance to put significant pressure on the SU to prioritize an attainable, sustainable goal that fits their definition.

The biggest oversight being made by those opposing the potential agreement is the loss of scholarship money for students. With the tuition cap expiring and the constant talk of market modifiers, financial security is quickly becoming one of the most discussed issues on campus. This raises the topic of economic sustainability — as students we want our education to be accessible and affordable. The money proposed in the potential agreement could go a long way in alleviating this pressure and could open doorways for disadvantaged students.