"From time to time, the University receives a request from a former student who has never been granted the degree for which he or she has completed the requirements and who would like to have the degree conferred," stated the proposal. "Despite the passage of a rather long interval, the faculty may determine that it is reasonable and fair to award a degree to an individual who has completed all the requirements."

Professor Nick de Takacsy presented the procedure, a proposal from the Committee on Student Affairs, saying that it would provide guidance to University administrators who must deal with requests for unclaimed degrees and have no clear rules about how to act.

The proposal stated that the request should "be directed to the registrar who will request verification by the Student Affairs Office of the faculty in question." The dean or associate dean would in turn review the request and determine whether the candidate had met all the degree requirements. If the answer were positive, the case would be returned to the registrar who would forward the recommendation to Senate.

De Takacsy noted that not all requests would be treated equally. In disciplines where new research affects the degree, or where the degree requirements have changed, it would be more difficult to grant the degree. For instance, a former literature student would probably have a better chance than a former science student, because new scientific research affects a science degree to a greater extent than new literary trends affect an arts degree.

Professor Pat Farrell objected to the proposal and tried to have it tabled indefinitely.

"Complexities will arise," he said. "It's not for Senate to establish procedures for exceptional cases." He also noted that it's up to the faculties to award degrees, not the registrar, or the student affairs offices.

De Takacsy conceded that Farrell was right in saying the faculties were responsible for making formal submissions for degrees to Senate, but he objected to the motion to table the proposal because of a disagreement over a couple of procedural steps or the wording.

A vote from the house defeated the motion to table. However, de Takacsy accepted a friendly amendment from Farrell to change the wording and the procedures to allow the faculties, not the student affairs offices to forward recommendations to the registrar. The main motion, as amended, was approved.

The Report of the University Committee on Scholarships and Student Aid was returned to that Committee by Senate on the basis that too much missing information, vague statements, and bad grammar made it difficult to understand, never mind approve.

The report, which was presented to Senate by the committee's chair, Professor Roger Rigelhoff, included 12 recommendations. Among these recommendations were calls to increase the percentage of students eligible to receive entrance scholarships and in-course scholarships. The recommendations all had financial implications. Mostly, they called for additional funding, but were vague about specific amounts needed and how these would be raised.

Vice-Principal (Information Systems and Technologies) Bruce Pennycook said he calculated the costs would be around $41 million. Vice-Principal (Research and Graduate Studies) Pierre Bélanger said it would be easy to increase the percentage of scholarships: simply reduce the value of each and redistribute the money.

Vice-Principal (Administration and Finance) Phyllis Heaphy asked how it would affect the operating budget and why this wasn't spelled out clearly.

"We're ill-prepared to receive this, " she said. "Are we committing the Development Office to look for funds? I don't see how these recommendations fit into any planning."

"I haven't the faintest idea of what kind of money we're talking about," said Professor Ted Meighen. He made a motion calling for the document to be sent back to committee.

The report's supporters claimed that the recommendations were a statement of principle and simply pointed the direction McGill should take if it was to remain competitive with other universities.

"It's not our job to design the budget," said Dean Alan Shaver. "We're sending signals to the board on items of principle, what we'd like to see happen."

"This wish list is a reality with which we'll have to deal," said Professor Martha Crago. "We're saying this is what we need to be competitive."

"I worry about Senate's tendency to defend the spirit as if it's not connected to the wording," Professor Martin Zuckermann stated. "The wording commits us to things."

A vote on the motion to return the document succeeded.