The following interview has been edited and shortened for clarity.

Aurelien Lechantre for the McGill Daily (MD): Could you begin by introducing yourselves and what you do for OSVRSE?

Jen Collins (JC): Yes, I’m Jen Collins. I’m the educational advisor for OSVRSE, the Office of Sexual Violence Response Support and Education. I’ve been here since August and I do programming, promote things for the office and manage the volunteer team, which are called peer educators. 

Alice Dautigny (AD): And I’m Alice Dautigny. I’m part of the peer educators team at OSVRSE: we are a team of seven student volunteers who give workshops to different groups and clubs from McGill, but  we’re trying to open it up to more students. Thus our work consists in helping organize events, managing the OSVRSE Instagram, and educating the community on how to respond to assault disclosure or situations of sexual violence.

MD: Then would you say the main activity of the office consists in the education aspect through such workshops? 

JC: OSVRSE is first and foremost a support space for those impacted by sexual violence. It’s a central spot on campus for that: we support anybody impacted by sexual violence by creating a safe space. We help people navigate receiving sexual violence disclosures from a friend, and support those who have experienced sexual violence themselves.  Even professors come in and ask about how to make their classroom a more safe and welcoming environment. So we help with accommodation, psychosocial support and counselling, safety planning, etc.

Then our student volunteers do workshops for clubs. Peer-to-peer learning is great because the students understand each other: they know what they’re going through and how to adapt presentations to the audience.

MD: What do these workshops mainly consist of, and what do they entail?  Is it like a class about the subject, the topic you’re about, or is it interactive? Who is your audience?

AD: Most of our audience, until now, is composed of clubs looking to organize events. Usually these events involve alcohol and drinking, so workshops are required for the audience to be able to respond if there’s any issue during their event. The workshops are educational content about several topics that can be interesting for student organizations to be aware of: being an active bystander and responding to disclosure (understanding how to behave if someone during an event comes to you for support). Our workshops are designed to be interactive, with lots of questions, simulations so people can put themselves in the place of an active bystander to prepare for real case situations, looking at real life scenarios, and always a 30-minute Q&A session.

MD: You mentioned active bystanders. What do you mean by that exactly? 

AD: In a workshop context, we like to use the term active bystander to teach participants how to behave when you’re a witness of sexual violence or sexual harassment. So usually it’s looking at our behaviour as witnesses in public spaces and can also be if you witness your friends in toxic relationships with dangerous sexual violence behaviors.

MD: Why do you think it important to comprehend this role of active bystander, specifically on campus?

AD:  I feel like McGill’s campus is both huge and very lively: partying, drinking and meeting people are an inherent part of campus life. Thus it is really important to have associations like OSVRSE and to make sure everyone is aware of the reality of sexual violence at our age.  There’s the beginning of many relationships and discovery of the dating world, so it is important to help prevent and educate people on what is a safe relationship and how to recognise abuse, sexual violence or toxicity — as, unfortunately, sexual violence is a reality for thousands of people, especially students 

MD: Do you think most McGill students are educated on such matters today? Are there other initiatives that OSVRSE has put in place to further education and awareness surrounding sexual violence on campus? 

JC: It is difficult to measure this precisely with stats, but I think “It Takes All Of Us” (“It Takes All of Us” is an online education program about consent and sexual violence, mandatory for every student entering McGill) is great in that aspect. It was created before I came here, but I got to take part in doing it and seeing it in the office. It’s really helpful: I wish I had it when I was in undergrad at my university.

AD: Actually, I heard about OSVRSE through the “It Takes All of Us” form. I looked up who the association was after seeing it in the form, then I saw they were searching for volunteers and  joined! But the other volunteers mostly heard of it through “My Involvement” or directly on the OSVRSE website. 

MD: How and where might we find you? If a student needs support or just wants to participate in a workshop, how can we get to know that? 

JC: You can go online at the OSVRSE website: you could book a workshop, you could see a response advisor, the different possibilities are all on our website and if you don’t see a time slot that works for you, you can always email the office, osvrse@mcgill.ca, and we’ll get back to you within our office hours. 

MD: Do you have anything to add? Perhaps an upcoming event or somewhere we might find you?

JC: Yes! On April 1, in honor of Sexual Assault Awareness Month, we are holding a trivia event at Mac campus. There’ll be food and prizes, and it’ll be really fun. We got a lot of local businesses to donate gift cards for raffles and prizes. So we really want to end the year with a big, fun event –  I think everyone loves trivia.

AD: And follow our Instagram (@OSVRSEmcgill) if you want to stay updated and participate in future workshops and events!

The post Highlighting OSVRSE appeared first on The McGill Daily.

On March 3, 2025, two Palestinian members of the Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU) submitted a motion calling for a Special Strike General Assembly (SGA) to deliberate on initiating a student strike in support of Palestinian liberation. This motion was accompanied by a petition garnering 52 signatures from students across various faculties, meeting the constitutional requirements set forth in Article 13.2 of the SSMU Constitution. Article 13.2 mandates that for a Special General Assembly to be convened, a written request must be submitted by at least 50 members representing a minimum of four different faculties or schools, with no more than 50 per cent of the signatories from any single faculty.  Upon satisfying these criteria, the SSMU scheduled the SGA for Thursday, March 27.

The motion received significant backing from campus organizations, notably Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights (SPHR) McGill. SPHR actively promoted the initiative, urging students to participate in the SGA and support the strike motion. Their endorsement emphasized the urgency of addressing the university’s affiliations and investments perceived to be complicit in actions against Palestinian communities. In preparation for the strike, SPHR continues to post support resources for activists, emphasizing that “in every historic example of divestment, prolonged mass student mobilization was essential to success.” 

The proposed strike motion outlined three central objectives:

• First, it calls on McGill University to divest from companies involved in weapons manufacturing and operations within Israeli-occupied territories; including but not limited to Lockheed Martin, Airbus, Textron, and Thales. Further, the strike would emphasize the need to reexamine financial entanglements deemed complicit in human rights violations.
• Second, it advocates for academic disruption through a temporary cessation of classes, intended as a material and symbolic act of protest to draw campus-wide attention to the Palestinian cause.
• Third, the motion demands institutional accountability, urging the administration to sever ties with entities implicated in the oppression of Palestinian communities. Additionally, the strike would put pressure on McGill to stop disciplinary action against students mobilizing for Palestinian rights. 

The March 27 General Assembly saw hundreds of students pack into the SSMU Cafeteria, reaching the maximum in-person capacity of 300, while over 400 more joined online through Zoom. The energy in the room was charged in in  a mix of tension, urgency, and collective determination. Students lined up at microphones to speak passionately for and against the motion, debating the implications, logistics, and symbolism of striking. Discussion featured both emotional appeals and procedural interventions, reflecting the deep engagement of attendees. While many voiced unequivocal support for the motion, both the principles and practices of the strike were debated. In the end, the motion passed by a significant majority,, with 679 SSMU members voting in favouur. 

The motion outlines that the strike is intended as an act of protest against the university’s perceived complicity in the oppression of Palestinians. It specifically demands that McGill University divest from companies involved in the occupation of Palestinian territories and the manufacturing of arms. The motion further calls for the disruption of regular academic activity to raise awareness and foster solidarity. During the strike, undergraduate students are asked not to attend class: however, students may still submit assignments online and attend scheduled exams. During class time, students are urged to participate in strike-related programming. These include information sessions, picket lines, and artistic interventions meant to mobilize broader campus dialogue and public visibility. 

Statements from organizers emphasized the urgency of collective action. During the GA, attendees cited recent developments in Gaza and longstanding student organizing traditions as motivators for their involvement. Members of SPHR and others expressed that this strike would not only be about Palestine, but also about confronting institutional complicity and reclaiming agency as students within university governance.

Speaker and organizer Rama Al Malah expressed the urgency of the motion, introducing the strike as part of a continuous effort for Palestinian liberation. “We know this is the will of the students, and we will strike and continue to fight for our people no matter what,” she shared in an emotional address to the crowd. 

Although the motion ultimately passed, the discussion at the GA reflected a range of conflicting student opinions. Some attendees voiced apprehension over academic consequences for students, while opposing parties challenged the effectiveness of the strike motion. Procedural debates arose around how to balance democratic participation with accessibility in a hybrid setting. 

“The atmosphere at the GA was full of hope — the entire room was buzzing with energy when I walked in. After the motion passed almost unanimously, everyone erupted into cheers and applause,” a student in attendance shared on the spirit of the event. 

SPHR’s framing of the strike echoed similar calls made during past student mobilizations at McGill, including anti-tuition hike protests and campaigns for fossil fuel divestment. Most notably, McGill students organized a pro-Palestinian encampment in 2024 that lasted several months, featuring teach-ins and cultural programming in what students called a “liberated zone” on campus. The encampment called for university divestment from companies tied to Israel’s military operations and drew national media attention before being dismantled. 

The McGill strike also arrives amid a broader wave of student-led activism across Montreal. Just one day prior, on March 26, around 200 students from Dawson College staged a walkout and marched to Concordia University as part of a coordinated day of action for Palestine, reinforcing a city-wide momentum for solidarity movements. This follows an emergency protest for Palestine on March 18, where hundreds of activists took to the streets and organized in front of the U.S. Consulate after Israel resumed its aggression on Gaza.

As of now, no public statement has been issued by the McGill administration or faculty associations regarding the motion or strike.  According to the motion, students are encouraged to participate in events relating to Palestinian liberation and refrain from attending classes. SPHR and supporting organizers are expected to coordinate teach-ins, community-building sessions, and peaceful demonstrations on campus, facilitated by SSMU. While the motion outlines no formal penalties for students who do not participate, it emphasizes the symbolic power of mass mobilization. Further details regarding event schedules, accommodations, and outreach will be shared on social media platforms in the days ahead.

This moment represents a significant chapter in McGill’s long legacy of student activism. “It is the students who steer us towards truth and justice,” Al Malah stated during the presentation of the strike motion. “We learned from history that students have the power to force the hands of our political class and administration that divestment is possible.” The passage of the strike motion underscores a renewed student interest in global solidarity and institutional accountability. With a resounding turnout and a mandate to act, McGill undergraduates have made clear that their vision of education extends beyond the classroom, and is rooted in justice, equity, and meaningful global engagement.

Whether or not the strike achieves its concrete demands, it has already galvanized a generation of students into collective consciousness and participation. As the strike approaches, all eyes are on what unfolds next — and on how student voices continue to shape the university’s stance in an increasingly politicized global landscape.

The post McGill on Strike: Student Solidarity for Palestine appeared first on The McGill Daily.

However, the Ukrainian armament is still deeply reliant on foreign aid. Military assistance to Ukraine has become central to European and North American foreign policies. Ukraine is blind without Washington’s sharing of satellite images and information transmission, which came to a halt after tensions arose between Trump and Zelensky. Ukraine also does not have an infinite supply of soldiers. Zelensky has already lowered the conscription age to 25 for all men in the country, and reports of dubious enrollment methods have circulated. Russia is better equipped for a lengthy conflict, even though public opinion at home may impact this. Producing most of its armament domestically, it can still count on drones from Iran, as well as ammunition and, reportedly, soldiers from North Korea, estimated at about 12,000 by Ukraine in February of this year.

Trump’s entry into office on January 20 radically changed the diplomatic dynamics surrounding the conflict. During his campaign, he promised to put an end to the war; but, on February 12, he was on the phone with Putin. After Zelensky visited the White House on February 28, Trump attempted to pressure Kyiv into accepting a deal on critical minerals in Ukraine, valued at $500 billion, to “pay back” for US support during the conflict. Though tensions following the Oval Office meeting dissipated, with discussions of American and Ukrainian delegations in Jeddah on March 11, this episode demonstrates Trump’s pursuit of American interests first and foremost at the expense of Ukrainians.

Zelensky also expressed concerns over “exclusionary” peace talks between Russia and the US, claiming that the American President is locked in a misinformation bubble and adheres to the Kremlin’s rhetoric. In that same meeting, Trump proceeded to call the Ukrainian President a “dictator” and accused Zelensky of starting the conflict.

Yet, Trump is not the only reason Ukraine cannot rely on its foreign allies. Europe stands divided on military assistance. The UK, France, and Germany remain committed to the Ukrainian people. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has urged global leaders to “keep the pressure” on Russia, Macron asserted French support for Ukraine, Germany sent additional support with Gepard anti-aircraft systems, to name a few examples.. Nevertheless, the EU rejected the proposed 40 billion Euro assistance plan, only allocating 5 billion Euro to supporting Ukraine — focusing solely on ammunition, rather than humanitarian aid.

It is in this inauspicious context that ceasefire talks recirculated. US envoys met a Russian delegation in Riyadh on March 24, and representatives from Kyiv the next day. The talks focused on a limited ceasefire, ensuring strikes stopped, resuming traffic in the Black Sea, and restricting the targeting of energy infrastructures. Washington seemed rather hopeful in Riyadh, claiming a “positive announcement ” would be made in a few days.

While all three delegations agreed to the limited ceasefire, their understandings of ceasefire conditions seemed to contrast. Zelensky ’s announcement that a ceasefire would take place with immediate effect was followed by news of Russian strikes in Sumy, damaging a school and a hospital while also killing 88 Ukrainians. On Tuesday, the Ukrainian Foreign Affairs Minister, Andril Sybiha, stated that “Moscow speaks of peace while carrying out brutal strikes on densely populated
residential areas in major Ukrainian cities.” The Kremlin replied that they understood that a ceasefire would only be enacted once certain conditions were met. This, alongside the fact the Kremlin
already broke off 25 ceasefires, explains Ukraine’s deep mistrust in Russia’s respect for the agreement.

In the words of the Guardian, these ceasefire talks and agreements cannot lead to any durable peace in Ukraine. Per the Guardian, the Russian and Ukrainian visions of peace are simply too opposed: the Kremlin asserts authoritative claims to Ukrainian territory and refuses to relinquish what it has already gained territorially, while Ukraine maintains claims of sovereignty, refusing to surrender its territory to Russia.

Peace in Ukraine does not appear possible in any foreseeable future, to the despair of humanitarian activists. War is always ultimately a humanitarian crisis, and Ukraine is no exception. If we talk about world leaders, military strategies and ‘big decisions’, we must not forget that war affects peoples’ everyday lives, impacting millions of Ukrainians and forcing them to flee the country as homes and resources are destroyed.

The post Three Years Later: Peace in Sight in Ukraine? appeared first on The McGill Daily.

This decision follows public consultations on homelessness and social cohabitation in Montreal conducted by the Office de consultation publique de Montral (OCPM) in mid-February. These consultations underscored the complexity of addressing homelessness and emphasized the need for diversified, long-term solutions. Participants highlighted that there is no universal solution to these issues and recommended developing resources adapted to various needs, such as shelters accommodating couples, individuals with pets, and those exhibiting disruptive behaviors, to ensure better social integration and support for vulnerable populations. The STM claims the.new measure is meant to “balance the needs of all metro users” and “ensure stations remain accessible for transit purposes.” They have also cited safety concerns and increasing incidents of overcrowding in metro stations, particularly during colder months.

Advocacy groups have strongly condemned the move, arguing that it effectively displaces some of the city’s most vulnerable residents without offering viable alternatives. Québec solidaire called on Legault to urge churches and community organizations to step in to provide additional shelter, but critics argue that relying on religious institutions is an inadequate systemic solution.

Indigenous community advocates have pointed out that the number of unhoused Indigenous people in Montreal is rising, a population which faces disproportionate struggles due to inadequate shelter resources and policing practices. Many activists argue that instead of displacement, Montreal needs long-term solutions, including more funding for shelters, transitional housing, and wraparound social services: comprehensive support programs that address multiple needs at once, such as mental health care, addiction treatment, job assistance, and case management to help individuals reintegrate into stable housing.

The STM’s policy has reignited a city-wide debate: should public spaces be made more accessible to unhoused populations, or should other solutions be prioritized? As criticism mounts, the STM has yet to announce any plans to revise the policy or introduce alternative solutions for unhoused individuals who seek refuge in the metro. Advocacy groups continue to call for emergency measures to support the city’s unhoused population, stressing that access to shelter remains a year-round issue. The debate over public space and homelessness in Montreal is far from over, with pressure on the city and the STM to provide meaningful solutions rather than temporary deterrents

The post Nowhere to Go: STM Cracks Down on Homelessness appeared first on The McGill Daily.

As a hub for student activism in America, particularly regarding pro-Palestinian resistance on campus, Columbia University has been the first of many higher education institutions in the U.S. targeted by the Trump administration. For example, on March 20, Trump announced the suspension of 175 million USD in federal funding to the University of Pennsylvania for allowing transgender women to participate in women’s sports. The Trump administration has also called for an investigation into the University of California (UC) system in the wake of allegations of antisemitism. As a result of these threats, the UC system has also banned ‘diversity statements’ from their faculty hiring process amidst a federal crackdown on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, showcasing how the Trump administration’s goals will leave lasting impacts on both students and staff.

The cuts in Columbia’s federal funding mark the first of many initiatives that the U.S. government is taking in stripping private and public institutions of their autonomy, in curriculum, admissions, and hiring processes. Critically, it has also created a shift in the exercise of First Amendment rights in spaces where free thought has traditionally been welcomed. As the number of campus protests
has exploded in the past year – with over 3,000 protests logged by Harvard University Ash Center’s
Nonviolent Action Lab – the Trump administration is adamant to control many of the country’s
leading universities. Trump has carefully crafted a route to justify restrictions on free speech, such
as by equating pro-Palestinian activism with anti-semitism, setting a dangerous precedent for
future leaders.

Amid the protests at Columbia, Trump dispatched federal agents from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) into two university residences, as revealed in an email sent out to students from the Interim President Katrina Armstrong on March 13. These agents, alongside U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers, had been assigned with arrest warrants, one for Columbia graduate Mahmoud Khalil, his detention being met with massive outcry across the country. Following his arrest, Trump vowed to deport pro-Palestinian activists, claiming that they support Hamas and are antisemitic. Despite the extreme circumstances that students across the country have been met with, protestors have refused to back down.

Universities across Canada and the U.S. have already been experiencing massive budget cuts, curtailing many PhD programs and even rescinding acceptances, as reported at the University of Pennsylvania. Now, with the threat of additional cuts looming over American universities, higher
education has become an instrument to Trump’s agenda to lead the country down a path of anti-intellectualism. As demonstrated earlier by the UC system’s banning of ‘diversity statements’ (despite California being a forerunner of readjusting to restore diversity in its admissions after the banning of affirmative action in the 90s), universities have preemptively changed their policies to align with the Trump administration’s values in order to protect themselves against retaliation. The many arguments that Trump has used to silence or control universities, such as punishing antisemitism due to anti-war protests, have been used as scapegoats for their broader mission of destroying “wokeness” in the U.S. In 2021, J.D. Vance declared that “the universities are the enemy.” This was not just an empty statement, as indicated by Trump’s recent executive order to shut down the Department of Education. Along the campaign trail, Trump and the Republican Party argued that the department should be under state control and that it has become dominated by liberal ideology. This anti-woke agenda is a symptom of the accelerating democratic backslide in the U.S., as well what many scholars deem to be an element of a developing fascist regime. In its self-declared war against “woke” culture, the Trump administration has actually been fighting against political opposition, resistant strains of thought, and values that do not directly align with its own.

On Friday, Columbia announced that it would concede to the requests from the federal government, which includes placing the Middle East, South Asian, and African Studies department under academic receivership, making protest rules on campus more strict, and increasing law enforcement authority. In the coming year, more and more universities will have to face a decision to either retain their institutional independence or to make concessions to the Trump administration and fundamentally restructure university policy.

Columbia University protests during its first encampment in April 2024.

The post Activism as a Scapegoat appeared first on The McGill Daily.

On March 18, they flooded the streets again, at the same starting point. But the general sentiment wasn’t joy: it was outrage.

Early Tuesday morning, the clock read 2:10 AM when the people of Gaza woke up to the deafening sound of air strikes — sounds they didn’t think they would have to endure any more.

Israeli raids targeted the northern, central, and southern governorates of Gaza. According to Al Jazeera Arabic, Israeli tanks also shelled the town of Abasan in Khan Younis. The world awoke to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s announcing that the war on Gaza had resumed.

By Tuesday afternoon, Gaza time, the Palestinian Health Ministry reported “404 martyrs and 562 injuries arrived at Gaza Strip hospitals so far,” adding that “a number of victims are still under the rubble.”

This continuation of brutal attacks comes two weeks after Netanyahu blocked aid from entering Gaza, just as Gazans were preparing to celebrate the holy month of Ramadan.

As of March 21, the rising toll of martyrs has reached nearly 600, with the majority of casualties being children.

The Islamic resistance group Hamas stated that “Netanyahu and his extremist government are making a decision to overturn the ceasefire agreement, exposing prisoners in Gaza to an unknown fate.” They called on people in Arab and Islamic nations, as well as the “free people of the world,” to take to the streets to protest the assault.

On Tuesday afternoon, at exactly 5:00 PM, Montreal4Palestine (M4P) rallied up Montreal residents in front of the U.S. consulate in response to this call. They expressed their frustration and anger concerning the escalation.

“Brothers and sisters, we are standing here today as a show of dignity, because we cannot just stay at home, and watch as these atrocities happen,” said one of M4P’s chanters. “I am fasting, and many of you are fasting right now, but that doesn’t stop us [from showing up]. Whether we’re fasting, whether it’s cold, whether it’s raining, we will continue to resist, we will continue to fight, because that’s what Gaza teaches us.”

“Today marks day 528 of the ongoing genocide in Gaza,” stated one of M4P’s organizers, noting that while the ceasefire technically went into effect on January 19, the aggression never stopped. “Only one truth stands clear: this is not a war on Gaza, this is an American-backed genocide. The Zionist enemy’s renewed aggression is not an isolated event. It is part of an ongoing war of extermination, targeting our people, targeting our cause, [and] targeting our resistance.”

Reports have suggested the Israeli government alerted the White House before launching the attacks, completely breaching the ceasefire agreement. U.S. President Donald Trump purportedly gave a green light to Israel’s moves.

“This is not ignorance, this is complicity!” continued the organizer. “The United States has once again proven that it is not a broker of peace, but a partner in war crimes, and genocide. Because with every
bomb that falls, every child under the rubble, every mother holding her dying baby, they all bear the fingerprints of American weapons.”

Montreal residents’, rejoicing only a few months back, now carried the weight of dozens of news headlines reporting rising death tolls. People screamed “shame!” in condemnation of the attacks, affirming the message of M4P’s organizer’s speech.

One speaker took the mic to say her piece in French, listing previous U.S. acts in complicity with Israeli aggression and violence towards Palestinians: “On December 6, 2017, Trump, then also President, recognized Jerusalem as the capital of the so-called State of Israel. And yesterday, he gave the green light to resume attacks on Gaza. So to try to separate the U.S.’s actions from what is happening in Gaza is to veil your face and deny that the so-called State of Israel is nothing more than an American colonial project.”

Many hecklers tried to disrupt the demonstration, yelling out obscenities at the chanters. They were met with M4P’s popular chant that goes, “All the Zionists are racist. All the Zionists are the terrorists,” to the beat of White Stripes’ “Seven Nation Army.” The chant has been a crowd favourite, used as rebuttal whenever Zionists attempt to cause chaos and invalidate the peaceful protest.

“They have tried and failed to crush our resistance, they have bombed our hospitals, they have wiped entire families,” said M4P’s organizer. “But they have not, and they will not, break our people and our resistance.”

Prior to the resumption of the war in Gaza, U.S. aggressions on Yemen have escalated, with the U.S. bombing Sanaa — the capital city controlled by the Houthis — and its surrounding areas, as well as the northern governorate of Saada and the port of Hodeidah. The U.S. government claimed to have been targeting Houthi leaders, their attacks resulting in the death of 53 people so far, including children, and nearly 100 injured.

Abdul Malik al Houthi, the leader of the Houthi movement, stated that the U.S. and Israel were “seeking to impose the equation of permissibility on the region and its people.”

“We will respond to the American enemy with missile strikes and targeting its warships and naval vessels,” he said.

The Houthis have been launching attacks on shipping containers along the maritime corridor in the Red Sea since 2023, in solidarity with Gaza, and had stopped when the ceasefire was announced in January.

However, ever since the breach of truce, and the Israeli blockade of aid, they resumed attacks. They have declared they will not stop until aid deliveries in Gaza are allowed back in. They have also carried out a missile attack on Ben Gurion airport in Tel Aviv. Hamas also launched three rockets into the city, their first counterattack since Israel’s breach of ceasefire. No casualties were reported.

The post Montreal Stands in Solidarity with Gaza appeared first on The McGill Daily.

On March 4, Trump activated a blanket 25 per cent tariff on imports from Canada and Mexico encompassing virtually all goods. A primary aspect of President Trump’s campaign was the promise of a better economy and lower inflation, but the economic impacts of these tariffs seem to contradict this. Americans and Canadians alike have growing concerns about Trump’s tariff war as duties of this magnitude inevitably lead to higher prices, raising the cost of virtually every good in both Canada and the US.

Economists have warned for years that tariffs and anything short of free trade inevitably lead to inefficient allocation of resources and marginally worse outcomes. Trump’s tariffs will make most Canadian goods less competitive by making them more expensive. American importers will now have to pay the US government a 25 per cent levy to bring them into the country.

Tariffs lead to higher costs for manufacturers to acquire materials such as steel, agricultural products, machinery, energy, and building materials. To retain profit margins, these costs are, more often than not, passed onto the consumer. This leads to rising prices for everything that crosses the border: groceries, cars, houses, electricity, gas, and more.

The US and Canada have been allies from their very formations and are intimately woven together in trade. “A tariff war has no winners,” former Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau stated after the activation of the tariffs.

What are President Trump’s goals with this economic war? He has stated multiple times that the tariffs will pressure Canada to secure its border and stop the “flow of fentanyl” into the country. However, statistics show that flows of fentanyl into the US from Canada account for less than one per cent of all fentanyl seized. Moreover, since January, the Canadian government has implemented a 1.3 billion dollar border plan that includes adding 10,000 border security personnel workers and appointing a “fentanyl tzar” — but this did not stop President Trump from enacting the tariffs.

Other potential reasons have been mentioned across Trump and Elon Musk’s X accounts: protecting national industries, growing American manufacturing, or even blatantly crippling the Canadian economy to better annex it as the 51st state.

Canada has made its feelings clear on what Trudeau called a “completely bogus and … unjustified” trade war. In response to Trump’s tariffs, Trudeau announced an equivalent 25 per cent tariff on 30 billion dollars’ worth of American goods and promised to tariff another 125 billion dollars of goods if the president did not cease his actions in the next three weeks. Later that day, President Trump posted on X further threatening Canada, saying that he will match any retaliatory tariffs: “Please explain to Governor Trudeau of Canada, that when he puts on a retaliatory tariff on the US, our reciprocal tariff will increase by a like amount!”

An inspiring wave of unity has overtaken Canada and its people from coast to coast. The federal government, provincial governments, and citizens are coming together to boycott US products and buy local. As the US’s largest alcohol trading partner, Canada has begun to pull American booze off the shelves. Unlike tariffs, this measure will have no economic impact on Canadians and instead directly decrease the sales of American liquor companies, who will then lobby against the tariffs. Politicians from all parties are uniting in a call of resistance, urging Canadians to never back down when facing a “bully.”

Further resistance from Canada ensued on March 6 when Ontario Premier Doug Ford announced that come March 10, a 25 per cent surcharge on electricity would be added to power exports to Minnesota, Michigan, and New York, should Trump continue with his actions. Trump has already acknowledged the US’s dependence on Canadian electricity by placing a lower 10 per cent tariff on energy imports from Canada. Indeed, the US is a net importer of energy from Canada, buying around 50 per cent more than it sells to its neighbour. The ten per cent tariff already in place, topped with Ford’s proposed 25 per cent surcharge, would lead to a 35 per cent increase in the cost of electricity for the approximate 36 million Americans residing in the states affected — a devastating increase for lower-income households.

The growing resistance to this unwarranted economic attack on Canada may have prompted President Trump to rethink his course of action: not 20 minutes after Ford’s announcement, Trump announced a one-month exemption on all tariffs affecting products that comply with the Canada-US-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA). While only affecting around half of the products originally tariffed and not retroactive — meaning all taxes paid between Tuesday and Thursday are not refundable — this still gave many industries, especially the auto and agricultural industry, a sigh of relief.

On March 7, Trump threatened to levy a 250 per cent tariff on dairy products from Canada, citing Canada’s own 241 per cent tariff on US dairy imports as a “rip-off.” However, Canada’s tariff primarily protects Canadian farmers; as dairy is a very minor export to Canada, this economic measure stands to have minimal effect on either country.

Trump also stated that he wishes to place tariffs on Canadian lumber. However, experts in the US say increasing lumber costs could have devastating effects on the American economy, resulting in increased construction and housing costs. Economists and home-builders caution that the US does not have the necessary industrial capacity to meet the demand for lumber through American resources alone.

The stock market has reacted negatively to the tariff war; the S&P 500 has plummeted by about four per cent in the past week.

President Trump’s aims remain unclear and his current proposed actions stand to hurt Americans just as much, if not more, than Canadians. With the uncertainty of more tariffs looming in the coming months, the effect on both economies remains unknown. While the world holds its breath as it watches two long-standing allies bicker, one thing remains certain: we have entered a new era for international relations between Canada and the United States. President Trump has tarnished the trust that has made our neighbouring countries prosper for over two centuries.

Editor’s note: This article was written before Premier Ford and President Trump stepped back from their threats of 25 per cent tariffs on US imports of Ontario electricity, and 50 per cent tariffs on Canadian steel and metal imports, respectively. As of the time of publication, the Canada-US trade spat is still rapidly developing.

The post The Tariff War: Trumped by Canada? appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Upon the publishing of the strategy, François Miller, Executive Director of McGill Sustainability, told the McGill Reporter that “collectively, we are transforming McGill into a world leader in sustainability.” To do so, the new plan focuses on three core domains: climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution. The university has adopted a bi-chronological approach, with long-term ambitious objectives and more pressing issues to be solved by 2030.

The report first outlines the long-term plan of achieving carbon neutrality by 2040, in balancing the university’s carbon emissions and absorption. In light of this goal, McGill aims to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 45 per cent from those reported in 2015. The university is also looking to increase climate resilience in facing increasing heatwaves, cold temperatures and extreme precipitation, both in frequency and intensity, and plans to address all critical climate risks on campus before 2030.

To remedy biodiversity loss, McGill pledged to become a Nature Positive University in 2022, joining over 500 higher education institutions worldwide in the effort to foster biodiversity on their campuses. Thus, by 2030, McGill plans to foster biodiversity in 30 per cent of our campus’s green spaces. This means managing our green spaces in a more responsible way: adapting mowing frequency, restricting chemical treatment, targeting only invasive species, and adding planting.

McGill is also currently pursuing goals of becoming a zero-waste institution by 2035. The university launched their first reduction and diversion of landfill initiative in 2018. In 2022, McGill created over 700 new sorting stations all over campus and compost stations in key academic buildings to further diminish landfill in 2022. Adopting a new meal plan approach in 2023 was another change made in hopes of lessening waste. The updated Climate Strategy outlines McGill’s goals to divert 70 per cent of landfill waste by 2030 to remain in line with its 2035 zero-waste objective.

Overall, these sustainability goals are consistent with McGill’s previous commitments, as the Climate and Sustainability Strategy for 2020-2025 contained the same core objectives. Indeed, achieving carbon neutrality by 2040, which has been a goal since 2017, and stayed consistently without any reassessment or delay discourse from McGill’s part. In other words, McGill is staying on track with its objectives. Proof of McGill’s continued engagement lies in their achievement of a Platinum STARS (Sustainability Tracking, Assessment and Ranking System) rating in March 2024: this achievement came six years before the deadline they had set, moving upwards from a silver rating only twelve years prior. The university’s efforts are confirmed when looking at the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education’s (AASHE) 2024 Sustainable Campus Index, where McGill ranked 8th out of 189 institutions.

However, an integral component of Climate and Sustainability initiatives at universities has to do with research and learning. McGill identifies not only research and learning as its “core mission,” but also the spreading of knowledge it should lead to. This is especially important knowing that Universities Canada warns that many higher education institutions do not communicate their actions or their research efficiently in sustainability. For example, in 2023, McGill established a sustainability module allowing students not only to further understand sustainability, but also showing them how to participate themselves and take action on campus. Learning about sustainability has been incorporated into university life through classes and modules, but also through workshops, clubs, and activities that give students the possibility to engage in a variety of ways.

The role of universities in sustainable development holds far more responsibility than simply making campuses ‘green.’ Evan Henry, Associate Director of the McGill Sustainability Systems Initiative (MSSI) states that, in setting its carbon neutrality goal ten years ahead of what Canada promised at the 2015 Paris Agreement, “not only are we playing our part, we are showing leadership, for not just Canada but for universities worldwide.” In other words, the new 2025-2030 Climate and Sustainability strategy not only reveals McGill’s ambition and commitment to sustainable development, but sets this same high standard for others. This seems to be a joint effort in Canadian universities: Sherbrooke University, the University of British Columbia, and Thompson River University all have a Platinum STARS rating alongside McGill.

Yet, despite the ambitious long-term goals and the emphasis placed on research and learning, Henry wishes McGill adapted to the “unexpected additional global emissions” and established more “aggressive” goals, as stated in an email to the Daily. Overall, if the new strategy ambitiously covers university action both on campus and beyond, it will become effective in the long-term and may be found lacking in more tangible shorter-term objectives.

The post Ambition and Long Term Emphasis In McGill’s Sustainability Strategy appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Major policy achievements during Trudeau’s run, which started in 2015, included legalizing cannabis, implementing a national carbon pricing policy, and negotiating key bi- and trilateral trade agreements like the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA). His government also rolled out social programs such as the Canada Child Benefit and a national childcare program designed to lift children out of poverty and make early education more affordable. However, his leadership was not without controversy. Approval ratings at home plummeted as inflation surged, a housing crisis emerged, and divisions within the party broke out. Meanwhile, economic tensions inched higher after Trump slapped a 25 per cent tariff on Canadian imports that led to a tit-for-tat response by Trudeau’s government. These woes, in addition to increasing public dissatisfaction, ultimately forced Trudeau to step aside, providing an opportunity for the Liberal Party to relaunch under new management.

But for all the gravity of his leaving, Trudeau’s final moments in office were not without a trademark touch of levity. An image of him walking out of Parliament on March 10, 2025 — with the chair under one arm and his tongue stuck out in jest — caught the public eye in a candid moment. Some considered the moment a testament to Trudeau’s charm and relatability; others saw it as emblematic of his occasionally overly relaxed style of leadership. It was, in any case, an apt distillation of his tenure: a leader who mixed serious governance with personal and sometimes idiosyncratic style.

As Trudeau steps aside, Carney presents a very different leadership profile. As the only person to have served as the Governor of the central banks of two G7 countries, he is historically placed as an eminent economist. During the 2008 financial crisis, his strong actions as Bank of Canada governor — cutting interest rates and keeping liquidity flowing — helped Canada recover more quickly than most of its peers. He was appointed Governor of the Bank of England in 2013 and worked swiftly to calm financial markets during the turbulence around Brexit. Now, in his capacity as prime minister, Carney’s crisis management experience is widely seen as an invaluable asset for confronting domestic and international economic challenges alike.

His elevation to Liberal leader wasn’t only a matter of his own credentials but also a response to Canada’s political moment. The Liberal Party’s choice to favor a technocrat over a politician in the traditional sense signifies an embrace of the data-driven, expert-based form of governance. Public mood has also been critical — Canadians are searching for a leader who can offer financial stability and long-term economic growth amid continuing trade disputes and signs of economic turbulence. Carney’s non-partisan credentials and crisis-tested leadership provide some comfort, but with no prior experience in or proximity to politics, doubts about how he’ll approach coalition-building, public engagement and legislative negotiations have arisen.

Carney’s influence in shaping Canada’s global role, as well as its standing within the Liberal Party, is widely expected to be significant. His economic pragmatism and emphasis on fiscal responsibility have the potential to alter the party’s focus and, some fear, may redirect it toward more moderate policies. North of the border, his steadfast commitment to defending Canada’s sovereignty, from external pressures — particularly from the US — is a clear signal of where he intends to go on issues of economic independence and diversification. His dream of diversifying Canada’s trade relationships beyond the United States may lead the country to engage more with the European Union and other global markets as alternative partners to reduce dependence on a single market.

Carney immediately inherits complex and urgent problems as he takes office. The paramount of these concerns is an increasingly aggressive trade conflict with the US that has weighed down Canada’s export-sensitive economy. Trump’s tariffs have spurred domestic economic uncertainty, raising calls for tougher negotiation tactics and trade diversification. In addition to outside pressures, Carney will have to confront internal economic issues, such as poor growth, inflation, and housing affordability. While Carney aligns ideologically with the Liberal Party, his reputation as a policy expert rather than a seasoned politician suggests he may need time to adapt to the dynamics of political life, build public support, and manage internal party challenges.

On the eve of his departure from politics, Trudeau addressed the nation, sharing his thoughts on his time in office and the strength of Canadians while calling on the people to stay true to democracy and unity. “I am so proud of Canadians. I’m proud to have served a country full of people who stand up for what’s right, rise to every occasion, and always have each other’s backs when it matters most,” he said in his farewell message. His comments highlighted the importance of solidarity and collaboration going forward under a new government.

The switch from Trudeau to Carney marks one of the most massive political turnovers in modern Canadian history. It represents a clear break from personality-driven leadership to an emphasis on economic expertise and crisis management. Although Carney is well-respected for the financial skills he developed in previous jobs, his capability to govern and engage with the public remains to be seen. With a new governing season upon us in Canada, observers are listening closely with good reason, eager to see if his tenure on the driver’s seat can usher in economic stability, reinvigorate national sovereignty, and guide us smoothly through the trials and tribulations of both domestic and international politics.

The post From Trudeau to Carney: Canada’s New Political Era appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Reports of these cuts first circulated in November 2024 when McGill announced that the teaching support budget in the Arts faculty was to be cut by 15-20 per cent, Morard stated. Each department and unit were given their own proposed cut number within that 15-20 per cent range: for example, the History department was directed to cut 17 per cent of its teaching support budget.

The cuts introduced last semester are linked to the larger cuts that the Faculty of Arts has to make in the upcoming fiscal year, as detailed in the Town Hall. When the monthly Faculty of Arts council convened on February 18, Morard described that the Faculty of Arts would face a $3.6 million cut target overall, including funds directed to teaching support.

“The way this will impact TA positions, and graduate students more broadly, will ultimately result in less hours and/or less positions,” Morard said.

Currently, TAs take a 180-hour position during a semester. While each department’s approach to these cuts will vary, the most common moves will be either cutting TA hours — for example, by creating 150-hour shifts — or by moving TAs into different positions, such as graders. Morard underlined how these cuts will not be uniform across the Faculty of Arts, and that individual departments are still in the process of deciding which route to take.

Potential cuts to the number of TA positions will have drastic impacts on the academic experiences of both graduate and undergraduate students, according to Morard. By reducing reaching support and lowering the budget for the Arts in general, course offerings are expected to decrease. Without TAs, the quality of these course offerings will also be affected, leading to lower educational experiences for both undergraduates and graduates at McGill.

Having been a TA himself, Morard described that being a TA is a valuable experience for many graduate students. This opportunity opens doors to teaching and is beneficial for those who are looking to go into an educational career. On the flip side, TAs help and support undergraduates in a variety of ways. They are a second source of expert knowledge on the course material, and can give students a new perspective on how to approach the concepts taught in their classes.

“An important part of McGill class offerings is having tutorials and conferences, not just lectures,” Morard further explained. “Having a TA allows for conferences, allows for tutorials, and that allows many students who, say, may not thrive in a lecture setting, thrive in small groups or smaller classrooms.” By eliminating TAs, and effectively cutting the number of tutorials or conferences offered to undergraduate students, they are removed from an opportunity to succeed academically.

Additionally, undergraduate students may feel more inclined to reach out to TAs instead of their professors, as TAs are younger and can appear more approachable. Morard noted that many undergraduates appreciate their TAs for having a closer interaction, which is not feasible in larger courses. Lastly, without TAs, professors are expected to take on the responsibilities of grading and will be inclined to offer more robust office hours, which takes away from professors’ ability to engage in their own academic research.

Morard described a few ways in which AGSEM has currently been trying to mitigate the effects of these cuts, primarily in trying to get the university to understand the value of TA labour. Last semester, the union launched their “No More Free Hours” campaign that has encouraged TAs to stick to their hours and prevent doing unpaid work. TAs often work beyond the hours they are paid for due to unpredictable workloads, such as responding to student emails, additional office hours, and extra-long grading. This campaign has been one of their main efforts to emphasize how important TA labor is. In addition, Unit 3 of AGSEM — which encompasses graders, course tutors, undergraduate course assistants, graduate student assistants, graduate teaching fellows, and other academic casuals — began bargaining for better work conditions last semester. These negotiations also seek to make it harder for departments to move Unit 1 employees to Unit 3 in what Morard described earlier as the effort to transition current TAs to graders. Unit 3 workers, while unionized, currently do not have a contract and are waiting on McGill to respond with an intent to bargain.

Overall, these imminent changes in the academic climate at McGill have left Arts TAs with a general sense of anxiety. Morard explained how younger TAs, such as first-year PhD students or Masters students, are increasingly worried about losing these opportunities. For many, these positions are an important source of income amidst rising costs of living in Montreal. The possibility of losing out on hours, or on even obtaining a TA position, has created much uncertainty and anxiety within AGSEM.

“Many TAs feel that they have to work over their hours, and will work over their contract hours […] knowing that they will lose experience or be forced to feel the pressure of possibly having to overwork for less pay,” Morard explained, rooting the overall sense of anxiety for current TAs to these reasons.

These attacks are a continuation of the general trend of disregard for the Arts at McGill. Recent years have seen consistent cuts in funding for the Faculty of Arts that extend beyond TA hours into course offerings. In 2013, McGill removed 100 Arts classes, which led to a reduction in “lower enrollment courses” as Provost Christopher Manfredi (then Dean of Arts) stated, replacing them with larger, broader classes. These larger courses were implemented at the expense of a more intimate class environment, which is what Morard warns will happen with these new rounds of cuts.

“A lot of people like to harp on the Arts and usually they are one of the first faculties — not only at McGill but across Canada and North America more broadly — that gets targeted,” Morard concluded.

The post No More Free Hours appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Moreover, this shock layoff will inevitably discourage other unionization efforts across the rest of North America. The Quebec labour group Confederation des syndicats nationaux (CSN) is incentivized to take legal action against Amazon in the coming weeks.

This is not the first time that Amazon has engaged in union-busting. Another example is the company’s actions leading up to the International Brotherhood of Teamsters union’s strike, organized by delivery workers in New York City, Atlanta, Illinois, and California in demand of better pay, benefits, and working conditions. (Amazon’s poor working conditions, causing injuries exacerbated by inadequate medical care, have been well documented including in a US Senate report). After Amazon failed to acknowledge the Teamsters’ response deadline of December 15, the union launched a strike later that December to affect Christmas delivery services. By refusing to negotiate a contract, Amazon was violating labour law. It is common for employers to refuse to bargain and it is widely established that striking is the best way to get them to the table, but in this case Amazon insisted that the strike did not hurt its operations. They also maintained that the drivers involved were not Amazon workers but “Delivery Service Partners,” recruited through third-party companies, even though they wore Amazon uniforms, drove Amazon trucks and delivered only products bought on Amazon.com.

Companies like Amazon rely on low-cost and easily replaceable labour, meaning they can deal with high turnover. Signing contracts with workers guaranteeing them a fixed salary, certain benefits, and an established level of workplace safety contradicts their fundamental business model. These interests have led Amazon to engage in illegal union-busting activities such as threatening workers’ pay and already-meagre benefits for joining unions, firing some workers for unionizing, intimidating immigrant workers with Trump’s deportation policy, organizing anti-union sessions with managers and company lawyers, and spreading anti-union rhetoric while taking down pro-union messages. Although federal laws in the US govern how companies can and cannot deal with unions and collective action efforts, according to Arthur Wheaton, Director of Labour Studies at Cornell University’s School of Industrial and Labor Relations, they face no significant penalty.

Amazon is not only violating labour laws in North America. During the summer of 2024, the heat in Northern India was so intense that birds were falling from the sky. Still, managers in Manesar made workers swear oaths that they would not drink water or take toilet breaks while working in order to meet productivity targets. Everybody complied, fearing they would lose their jobs. Workers in the plant-loading section resorted to covering exposed skin with clothing to avoid burning in the sun, but this made them sweat, instead losing body moisture to the point of dehydration. Some workers who collapsed from the heat were deducted wages for the time they spent in the hospital. Dharmendra Kumar, the president of the Amazon Workers Association of India, which is part of UNI Global Union, says Amazon workers in India are commonly employed on short-term contracts lasting between one and eleven months. Only contracts lasting over a year qualify for statutory benefits; at the end of 11-month contracts, workers are customarily fired and then hired again.

The exploitation of these workers has helped Jeff Bezos, Amazon’s CEO, amass an estimated fortune of more than US$200 billion and qualify as the third richest man in the world. Now more financially potent than many governments, big multinational companies like Amazon are capable of influencing legislation in their favour. Not only do they spend tremendous amounts of money (sometimes through backchannel contracts) on lobbying and pressuring governments into enacting policies that may be unpopular with their electorates, but also directly fund many far-right political parties and idealist groups. Bezos, among other tech billionaires such as Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg, were front and centre at Donald Trump’s second inauguration. On top of that, Amazon has started selling merchandise featuring Trump’s expansionary comments, such as “Canada, 51st State” and “Make Canada Great Again,” seemingly following after Google, whose map services recently renamed the Gulf of Mexico to Gulf of America, and Facebook, who have removed fact-checking on posts.

Amazon’s continued violations of human, labour, and democratic rights violations are why workers are calling for an Amazon boycott. While a few million sales may not make that big of a difference for the company, it can make a big difference in the development of small businesses in Quebec and Canada that respect labour laws.

The post Boycotting Amazon appeared first on The McGill Daily.

As of late December, family physician Dr. Hashana Perera, the Wellness Hub’s primary GAC doctor, has gone on maternity leave and will not be back until January 2026. Dr. Perera was responsible for providing Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT), surgery readiness assessments, and other trans healthcare services alongside local wellness advisor Margot Nossal. During her absence, Dr. Perera’s patients have been redirected to the Hygea endocrinology clinic. 

The Wellness Hub told the Daily that they have a “multifaceted plan to provide care during Dr. Perera’s leave” and have been “building capacity through training and increasing options for care.” Nonetheless, the TPU has expressed that this redirection of services is an additional obstacle for trans patients seeking GAC and HRT services.

The TPU claims that since any general practitioner can supervise and administer HRT in Quebec, “it is an unnecessary burden on endocrinology clinics to exclusively shoulder this responsibility.” They added that “as specialized medicine, endocrinology is harder and slower for patients to access than general practice.” Multiple healthcare providers at Hygea have also recently gone on parental leave, adding an additional strain on their staff amidst an influx of new patients.

As of mid-January, the waitlist for HRT at Hygea was over a year long, a considerably longer wait than for any other endocrinology services at the clinic. According to the TPU, this means that patients referred to Hygea at this time will likely not be able to receive service at the clinic until after Dr. Perera returns from her leave.

According to a statement given by the TPU to the Daily, Wellness Hub employees told the organization in January that no plans had been made for other staff at the Hub to take over Dr. Perera’s role in administering HRT. However, in a more recent statement to the Daily on February 21, the Hub said that other medical staff are currently being trained in facilitating HRT and administrating other trans care services. The reason for this change is unclear. In January, the TPU claimed on Instagram that, to their understanding, Hub doctors have had access to and, in some cases, not taken various opportunities to learn how to provide HRT. Rather, the TPU states, “it simply seems that many doctors at the Hub, and in Quebec, do not believe that providing care to trans people is their job.”

The Wellness Hub also told the Daily that they have recruited a new family physician with seven years of experience in GAC services, who they hope will begin work at the Hub by mid-March. The TPU claims that the head of the Hub told them via email in January that they intend to find new providers, but the TPU has doubts after the same promise was left unfulfilled last year.

The TPU continues to meet with members of the Wellness Hub at least once a semester to discuss issues raised by patients on access and medical practices. In an official statement given to the McGill Reporter and shared with the Daily, the organization said that the dialogue with Hub employees over the years has been encouraging, and that they have been happy to see specific providers demonstrate a willingness to improve and develop trans patient care.

In 2022, the TPU interviewed over 25 trans patients to produce a comprehensive list of proposed changes to improve the GAC services at the Wellness Hub. They worked alongside SSMU, HealthQueer Professionals, and Community Educators for Healthcare Improvement to ensure the representation of trans voices in wellness spaces at McGill. Despite important victories over the past three years, the TPU claims that there is still much progress to be made in adequately addressing issues raised by patients.

The TPU has already raised various questions about the efficiency of HRT services at the Wellness Hub, and, as stated to the Daily, has made Hub employees aware of the precarity of having only one doctor providing HRT. Simultaneously, the TPU continues to have grievances and concerns about GAC at the Wellness Hub. In a statement posted on Instagram, the TPU discussed the limitations of trans health services available to McGill students, including: that the HRT process is unnecessarily long, that there is only a narrow range of HRT medications available to transfeminine patients, and that 17-year-old patients cannot access their right to consent to HRT until their 18th birthday — despite the medical age of consent being 14 in Quebec.

These grievances come directly from the patients the TPU represents. A series of anonymous interviews conducted by the TPU for the McGill Reporter raise various issues with GAC practices at the Wellness Hub, including practices that do not align with international recommendations set by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health. The six-month wait period to begin HRT (beginning from when the patient had come out or begun socially transitioning), and a visual inspection of the chest wall and physical examination of the genitals for patients seeking feminizing hormone therapy, are two Hub policies which have been dropped after meetings with TPU representatives. That being said, as of December, the Hub still required a minimum of three appointments to receive a prescription, even when patients presented a consent form at their first appointment.

“I think in general there needs to be greater understanding and recognition of trans patients’ perspectives on their own medical care,” shared a former undergraduate student who received HRT, referrals for surgery, and mental health services at the Wellness Hub from 2022-2024.
“I think it would be beneficial to see more doctors able to provide gender-affirming care at the Wellness Hub, though I know this is easier said than done,” a current student added.

The TPU continues to remain in contact with the Hub, which has been made aware of their concerns. The Union has also been in communications with Student Services and Provost Angela Campbell, and hope to meet soon with Dr. Vera Romano, Director of the Wellness Hub. In this time of change among GAC practices, The Wellness Hub has stated that they will continue to correspond with the TPU, keeping them informed of recruitment efforts and developments during Dr. Perera’s leave.

Gender-affirming care goes beyond HRT services. In Dr. Perera’s absence, the Wellness Hub continues to offer support services to LGBTQ+ students: students can meet with Local Wellness Advisors who provide psychosocial support, book appointments with counsellors and sexologists, and refer to Access Advisors in navigating care and support. For trans students struggling in the wake of recent changes made by the Wellness Hub, the TPU offers a plethora of resources for support, healthcare, and gender advocacy.

The post TPU Raises Concerns About Changes to Trans Care at Wellness Hub appeared first on The McGill Daily.

This is how Erica Mandato, one of the speakers for this year’s TEDxMcGill event, started off her speech, perfectly encapsulating the essence of the theme ‘Ripples.’

On Sunday, February 9, TEDxMcGill’s yearly speaker-series event took place in the historic space of Le National. Amidst the rustic ambiance, creaking floorboards, and centenarial architecture, bright and innovative ideas were shared with a captivated audience. TEDxMcGill is an independently operated event organized under the umbrella of TED, with the goal of highlighting ‘ideas worth spreading’ by inviting innovative speakers to share their insights with the world in 18 minutes or less.

Selected from a pool of 125 applicants, the most competitive year yet, this year’s event featured the talks of seven individuals: Charlotte Spruzen, Michael Zegarelli, Yasmine Elmi, Charlie Scholey, Asmaa Housni, Erica Mandato, and Iyngaran Panchacharam. The speakers were diverse in experience and perspectives, ranging from undergraduate, masters and PhD students at McGill, to career professionals.

When asked about the choice of the theme ‘Ripples,’ TEDxMcGill’s Chair Katherine Squitieri said they wanted “to express the diversity and variety of information that you can find in a TED talk and make sure that speakers had the freedom to express their ideas without feeling constricted to one theme or narrative.” And so just as ripples spread when a drop hits the surface of the water, each speaker had the opportunity to illustrate how their ideas and experiences can create ripples throughout our collective lives. These ripples took many different forms, and just as the executive team had intended, each speaker molded the theme to fit their experiences.

Charlotte Spruzen kicked off the event by introducing the notion of uniformitarianism, discussing how geological principles affect the past in the same way they do the present. She illustrated this with a picture of sand waves shaped by the wind next to a fossil of similar sand waves from millions of years ago, frozen in time. In a geological era so influenced by human activities that we’ve named it the Anthropocene, after ourselves, it is critical to understand how these ripple effects can permeate through time at a much larger scale. Spruzen highlighted that the negative effects of climate change can and will affect our planet for thousands of years to come, and we must come together to fight it.

Michael Zegarelli, VP of project management at Colliers Project Leaders, continued the discussion by focusing on adaptive design. He emphasized that the time for turnkey, traditionally master-planned cities is over: we must incorporate human creativity and freedom into city planning. He showed participants that our cities must be flexible systems that can adapt and change in needs over time, empowering individuals to shape the space that they call home. He concluded by saying that we must “stop building cities that answer a question and start building cities that spark a thousand new ones.”

Audience members were then immersed in Yasmine Elmi’s story of refusing an acceptance into medical school, in protest of the ripples of structural racism permeating the systems of the healthcare industry. Yasmine shared that the echoes of laws banning people of colour from attending medical school, as well as victims of discrimination by the healthcare industry have inspired her to refuse to participate in this broken system. Instead, she chose to follow her ripple, and now advocates for diversity and inclusion within the healthcare system.

The conference then changed beats when speaker Charlie Scholey came onstage to share the benefits of comedy – while stepping on a fart cushion and throwing it off stage. Next up was a serendipitous performance by the Soulstice A Cappella group, sending melodic ripples through the crowd as their voices filled the walls of Le National. And if that wasn’t enough of an energy boost, the United Groove group showcased their dance skills with an upbeat performance to today’s most trending songs.

The following talks were then very diverse in nature, representative of the diverse experiences of the speakers. Asmaa Housni talked about the paradox of knowledge, concluding that power isn’t inherent to knowledge but rather stems from how we engage with it. Erica Mandato followed up with how her experiences with death have shaped her understanding of life and the social connections we create through it. Mandato expressed to the crowd that loneliness is the new silent killer, as more of us feel isolated in modern life. She stressed that social connection is more important now than ever. “We must reconnect as a community. Every meeting with a stranger is an opportunity to open our minds and hearts,” she shared during her speech. Finally, Iyngaran Panchacharam concluded with a talk about AI, stating that through self awareness and literacy, advocacy, and resilience, “we all have a vital role in producing and controlling the ripples of AI.”

One of the many goals of TEDxMcGill is for “people to be inspired throughout the year and continuously engage with these ideas beyond the event itself,” said Squitieri. It is the executives’ hope that the talks held during this year’s speaker series go beyond the event and have thought-provoking effects on the broader TEDx ecosystem. This is the fundamental idea behind the ripples theme: for ideas to spread and ripple across our community.

“TEDx is the network of people, the dedication that everyone has; all collected under this essential idea of sharing things we’re passionate about and connecting with others through words and speeches,” said Squitieri. She adds that “It’s inspiring to see speeches take on a life of their own outside of the event. We’ve had quite a few talks take off and TED’s platform and reach people far beyond Montreal outside of Canada. And something stemming from something so small as what we’re doing and hearing feedback from people on a different continent is really interesting.”

After the conference ended, TEDxMcGill staffer Le Thuy Dong Nguyen told the Daily that “what’s really important is to pass on knowledge to drive action in the world […] I hope the audience can take away important lessons from the insights shared and bring it to their communities.” And they really did. Audience members described the event as “inspiring and emotional.” One member even told the Daily that these talks sparked an inspiration to incorporate some of the discussed subjects into his artwork.

This conference showcased how no ripple is too small. In this time of uncertainty, social disconnect, and adversity, we all have a role to play in bettering our society. In the words of an African proverb, ‘if you think you’re too small to have a big impact, you’ve never spent the night with a mosquito.’ And as Yasmine Elmi shared in her speech: we should all strive to “be the mosquito.”

The post “RIPPLES” appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The following interview has been shortened and edited for clarity.

Aurelien Lechantre for the McGill Daily (MD): As a national investigative journalist, how do you work? What is it like to investigate a right-wing activist movement for example?

Jonathan Montpetit (JM): Most of my research starts online, not surprisingly: I monitor a lot of different Facebook pages, Twitter feeds, Telegram chats, that kind of thing, and I try to get a sense of how certain themes, policy issues are being talked about, and then as much as possible, I try to, from that research phase, go and talk to people.

MD: Do you go to movements presenting yourself as a CBC investigative journalist to interview them?

JM: One of the things that journalists avoid, whenever possible, is hiding our identities. I’m accountable for my behaviour as a journalist: I don’t want to trick you, I want to hear what you have to say. That’s kind of like our main approach. What happens sometimes though, and I think particularly in investigative journalism, is that you’re trying to get information that would not otherwise be public, and there are people, institutions, or organizations, who are actively preventing you from trying to make that information public.

If you believe that information is of public interest, that it’s essential that it be made public, then you can use different methods to gather that information. For instance, I did a story about a political movement of Christian fundamentalists in Canada. They were holding conferences, discussing their policies and strategies. They would not let me attend as a journalist, and so the next time, I simply bought a ticket, still in my name, and went unofficially. I had my recorder on me, paid attention to being discreet, and observed. However, there has to be a very, very high threshold for an investigative journalist to disguise their identity, because it should be our last resort. There have been some excellent examples of journalists disguising their identities and infiltrating right-wing extremist movements. On my part, the reporting I have done on right-wing groups has always been, “I’m John, I work for the CBC, can I talk to you?” and sometimes people accept. However, there’s an increasing suspicion of the media, and gaining that level of access has been increasingly difficult.

MD: Do you think this poses a threat to investigative journalism? Would you, as a journalist, have to take more and more risks for inquiries and hide your identity more frequently?

JM: I think there are general risks to being a journalist. You know, press freedom is not a straight line moving forward, and I think we’re at a moment where press freedom is certainly on its heels in a lot of different ways.

I think one of the threats to reporting on the far right that’s emerged over the last, four or five years is that there’s a very gendered and racialized way that a lot of these groups deal with media coverage of their activities. Many of my colleagues who, whether they are journalists of color or women or a sexual gender minority, face tremendous backlash online anytime they report on the far right, sometimes going as far as death threats and stalking.

I can deal with it because I work for a large news organization that has resources to protect its journalists. A lot of journalists work independently, and freelancers are a lot more vulnerable to that backlash. Pursuing journalism as a freelancer takes a tremendous amount of courage, but our information environment is richer because of the risks they take on a daily basis.

MD: You mentioned how you thought freedom of the press and journalism were on their heels today: do you think this applies to Canada? Do you think this backlash many journalists suffer from is increasing and poses a risk to journalists today?

JM: I’m a hopeless optimist when it comes to the future of journalism. However, I think there’s no question that journalism in Canada is at a moment of tremendous uncertainty: every journalist, every news organization in Canada has uncertain sources of revenue and is re-evaluating their relationship with audiences. In those uncertain moments, it is easier for some political actors to try to avoid the accountability mechanism that is the press. Because journalism as an institution is going through this period of change, our mechanisms of accountability are weakened and it’s easier for the powerful to do things with less of the pressures of transparency that the press imposes. For example, Meta has barred news links in Canada on all their platforms. Instagram, Whatsapp and Facebook’s millions of users in Canada are deprived of reliable information while misinformation spreads like wildfire.

MD: So would you say social media and the tech giants that handle them are a big threat to press freedom and investigative journalism?

JM: I would say that, if you look at how many news organizations are deciding to no longer post on X because they view it as hostile to their “raison d’être.” The recent decision by Meta to end fact-checking on posts, and explicit animosity towards fact-checkers, shows the fraught relationship between big tech and journalism. I think big tech companies see mainstream journalism as a competitor or a threat, and I think certainly in the comments made by Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg, there are attempts to delegitimize mainstream journalism.

MD: And do you think the fact that the media relies partly on social media is a risk? Do you think there’s a need to change, to evolve from the revenue system that relies on ads for journalism to be preserved?

JM: While mainstream media had long relied on advertising as its prime source of revenue, social media has revolutionized the ad market. With the advertising revenue becoming less reliable, a growing number of media outlets are experimenting with a subscription-based model.

At CBC, colleagues of mine who work on the social media desk constantly have to monitor algorithm changes, as suddenly your audience can change radically. So the struggle for journalists is to both exploit the audience potential of social media without becoming overly reliant on social media.

MD: You mentioned how CBC was less affected by the ad-revenue system because of federal government funding. How does that align with the role of investigative journalism?

JM: I think one of the challenges of investigative journalism is that it’s resource heavy: it requires a lot of people, it can be expensive, and takes a long time. When the media market places the emphasis on producing content, investigative journalism can seem kind of crazy: who says, “I’m gonna employ these three people and they’re gonna produce one story every six months? This makes investigative journalism one of the first things to get cut. I think having a source of revenue that is independent of advertising has allowed CBC to commit to investigative journalism when other news organizations would not be able to.

MD: Do you think committing to investigative journalism is a priority today? Should it be?

JM: It is difficult for me to conceive of a flourishing liberal democracy without a robust culture of journalism. Maybe I just lack imagination, but I think liberal democracy thrives when you multiply mechanisms of accountability. And if you remove investigative journalism, you’re removing an accountability mechanism essential to democracy.

Investigative journalism should be part of our conception of how information flows in our society. If you suddenly were not to have that flow of information, you have citizens who are less informed, who know less about the consequences of public policy, who know less about the consequences of corporate power, who know less about what their politicians are up to.

MD: Is there anything you would like to add before winding up our exchange?

JM: I think the modern challenge for journalists is to grapple with the role of technology in the media, and to think creatively about technology: how can we use these new tools creatively to get more information, to build relationships and enhance our possibilities as journalists without relinquishing the human aspect of reporting.

The post Investigative Journalism: An Endangered Pillar of Democracy? appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Critically, the brunt of these costs are expected to ripple through employment at the university. Manfredi stated in the town hall meeting that “staffing costs account for 80 per cent of our operating expenses, so most of the adjustments are going to come from reducing our staffing costs.” While faculties and other major administrative units at the university have received budget targets for the upcoming year, which gives them the discretion to eliminate activities that may accrue additional costs, approximately 250 to 500 jobs will be cut in the process of this $45 million correction. McGill has yet to release details on which specific jobs they are targeting.

In order to account for the full repercussions of these financial pressures, administration has announced plans to launch a multi-year initiative in two key phases. This initiative seeks to not only balance McGill’s budget for the upcoming years, but almost optimize administrative services, review the current management of academic programs, and launch plans for strategic enrolment. Phase One of this initiative is geared towards implementing immediate corrections in the coming years, which include cutting $16 million and $14 million from the budget for the 2027 and 2028 fiscal years, respectively. Phase Two entails what Manfredi claims to be a “major transformation of McGill.” This phase will be carried out predominantly through an international benchmarking initiative titled UniForum, which observes the measures other universities have taken to increase efficiency under reduced operating costs due to financial pressures.

The immediate impacts of these budget cuts will be felt most drastically in the academic lives of McGill’s students. In December 2024, McGill imposed a hiring freeze in light of the financial impact the tuition hikes had on enrollment rates. Manfredi stated in an email to the Montreal Gazette that “the goal of this measure is to reduce the number of employees in the short term through attrition rather than cutting positions held by current members of our workforce.” Now, however, it appears that this is no longer a short-term solution, and that the university will begin implementing layoffs. In the town hall meeting, Manfredi claimed that McGill will ensure equal treatment across all employee groups — but it has already become evident that the most vulnerable employee groups, such as teaching assistants (TAs), will become the first source of reduction for the university’s operating costs.

Last winter, the Association of Graduate Students Employed at McGill (AGSEM) initiated a month-long strike asking for a pay increase comparable to the hourly rates of other Canadian universities. They ultimately came to an agreement with McGill on a 15.5 per cent increase over the next four years, with their hourly wage increasing from $33.03 to $38.46, effective as of August 1, 2026. This means that TAs now are still facing the same conditions in which they began their strike. Moreover, with McGill’s new policy of attrition, the university will not be replacing the positions of those TAs who choose to leave. This leaves many faculties potentially understaffed as they try to navigate this semester and the upcoming school year. However, in the town hall meeting, there was little discussion about how these job cuts will directly impact this student-led position, especially since TAs are often a first point of contact for students.

Saini admitted that “it just really is impossible to say how many jobs, because we won’t know that until individual units — faculties, departments and so on — come up with their plans on how they are going to achieve the reduction in salary mass.” Deferring the judgement on financial planning to the faculties themselves leaves TAs unable to go directly to McGill administration about their grievances. Saini, Manfredi, and Labeau emphasized how they are trying to maintain the reputation of McGill among the world’s leading universities. Manfredi assured students that they want to make sure that “McGill remains a place that provides [students] an educational experience that led [them] to choose McGill.”

However, these promises were made without a thorough explanation of how the budget cuts would directly impact the education students receive at McGill. TAs and professors work together to make sure that students are understanding course material in the most optimal fashion. It becomes difficult to “thrive in [one’s] research and scholarly endeavors,” as Manfredi put it, when one TA is assigned to large courses, often responsible for hundreds of students at once. The reduction in academic staff is guaranteed to put students’ educational experiences in jeopardy.

The post McGill Announces $45 Million in Budget Cuts for the Upcoming Academic Year appeared first on The McGill Daily.