Six candidates spoke to their platforms, outlining their ideas for the society moving forward.
The candidates met on Jan. 26 at 6 p.m. over Zoom to discuss key issues ahead of the Society of Graduate and Professional Students (SGPS) election. The all-candidates’ debate lasted an hour and a half, touching on themes of graduate financial wellbeing, representation in advocacy efforts, and transparency.
All candidates were in attendance, including presidential candidates Alexandra Giff, HealthSci ’25, MSc ’27, and Tatyana Grandmaitre, ArtSci ’24, JD ’27, Vice-President (Graduate) candidates Olusola Akintola, PhD ’29, Olivia DiPaolo, MSc ’27, and Sakura Koner PhD’28, and the sole Vice-President (Professional) candidate, Mary Arakelyan, MD ’29. Each candidate was given two minutes to introduce themselves and to respond to prepared and audience presented questions.
Financial Wellbeing
A common thread in all candidates’ responses was financial wellbeing, particularly in the face of housing difficulties and food insecurity.
In both of their opening statements, Akintola and Koner emphasized the need to support graduate students though mounting housing prices and increasing food insecurity. Koner placed a special emphasis on advocating for more equitable stipend packages across all departments. In her opening statement, DiPaolo included the need for accessible financial literacy education for graduate students.
“I’ll advocate for the return of graduate specific budgeting seminars, and financial literacy workshops with attention to the unique needs of both domestic and international students,” DiPaolo said.
Arakelyan noted the differences in funding opportunities between graduate and professional students, highlighting that financial assistance is most applicable to professional students in the form of career planning and navigating recruitment.
When asked about collaboration with Queen’s administration on addressing student financial needs, Giff stressed the importance of bringing specific, actionable ideas to their attention, such as the creation of a graduate student housing accommodation listing to increase housing accessibility. In response to the same question, Grandmaitre emphasized maintaining a good relationship with the University administration and finding middle-ground solutions to support students.
“Of course, those conversations can still be adversarial, but they can be collaborative, […] we can find a way to make sure everyone is satisfied with the outcome,” Grandmaitre said.
The presidential candidates also addressed a question from the current SGPS Graduate Student Trustee, and former SGPS President, Emils Matiss, asking how they’ll ensure follow through on their campaign promises. Both candidates stressed the importance of utilizing specific goals and building upon already existing systems, rather than attempted to reinvent systems entirely.
Representation in advocacy
Across multiple questions, the issue of adequate student representation in advocacy efforts was consistently returned to.
Grandmaitre mentioned how the SGPS president can work with the administration to centre student needs.
“Administrators have a different perspective […] but you’re ultimately all there because at some point you acknowledge that you’re here to support students,” she said. Giff stressed being adamant about student requests in the face of administrative dissent.
On two separate occasions, the audience put forward questions to the presidential candidates regarding the conflict in Palestine, and questions of divestment from countries tied to Israel and arms dealing. The first question involved equally representing diverse student interests, accusing past SGPS executives of acting “non-democratically.”
Both candidates expressed the need for democratic engagement with the student body, and representing their interests regardless of their personal opinions.
The second question focused on advocacy for divestment requests pertaining to environmental and “ethical investments,” in cases where a compromise might not be acceptable to the student body.
Grandmaitre noted the need for collaboration with the university administration to ensure they can work together in addressing student concerns.
“Once students make the change [calls for divestment] administration really has no choice but to follow suit,” Grandmaitre said.
Giff expressed that if tasked with advocating for divestment on behalf of students, she would ensure it remains on the agenda until there’s a written reply from the decision makers.
“Because if it’s important to students, it’s very important that it gets brought up and that there’s a response,” she said.
All candidates were asked how they would advocate for student needs in the face of Bill 33. The first respondent, DiPaolo, emphasized the importance of evaluating the bills effect on student fees and taking the necessary steps to defend graduate services and funding. Akintola and Koner took a similar approach, highlighting the need to evaluate the impact of the bill. Arakelyan noted that the bill may not affect student services but similarly underscored the need for advocacy.
The presidential candidates emphasized a need for risk assessment, and documentation of any cuts to student services. Grandmaitre noted her involvement in the AMS as an HR manager and head manager for Society, and their existing advocacy efforts against Bill 33.
Transparency
Each candidate emphasized the importance of transparency, and increasing the role of the SGPS in informing the student body of available services, and issues that pertain to them.
DiPaolo was adamant about the role of social media in keeping students apprised of the SGPS’s initiatives. Grandmaitre similarly noted that social media will be helpful in in increasing the visibility of the SGPS.
Giff spoke to providing regular updates on discussions with administration, and the changes they may bring.
“If someone in the administration says we don’t have funding for new housing supports, I wouldn’t argue this constraint. Rather I’d reframe this problem as access and transparency, not just dollars,” she said.
Koner highlighted the need to explain differences in stipend funding across programs. She noted that transparent communication about financial difficulties could help open the door for better dialogue, which could ultimately address her goal of increased funding for stipend payments.
“I would want to make governance structures at Queen’s where student can represent themselves, and advocate for themselves,” Koner said.
All candidates noted that students often feel disconnected from the SGPS, and for that reason, are unaware of many opportunities available to them. Akintola expressed the need to educate students on the role of the SGPS in preparation for potential implementation of Bill 33, to ensure people remain opted-in to student fees should they become optional.
Each candidate expressed a desire to become more visible to the student body and welcomed questions in advance of voting.
The SGPS election will take place from Jan. 29 to 30 through the online platform SimplyVoting.
Tags
Elections 2026, SGPS elections, SGPS executive
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s) in Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be contacted, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to journal_editors@ams.queensu.ca.