Latest News

Commentary, Opinion

When Ottawa cuts, Kahnawà:ke pays

by Naïri Kibarian on

More in Commentary:

Through Bill C-5’s ‘Building Canada Act,’ the Carney administration aims to achieve extensive economic development projects—though without respect for Indigenous rights and sovereignty. When critical funding for Indigenous services is placed on the chopping block, Indigenous communities have no choice but to take sovereign action to secure for themselves what the Canadian government has repeatedly refused to provide. 

In an effort to achieve the goals of Bill C-5, Prime Minister Mark Carney has pledged to cut 15 per cent of the annual budget, amounting to approximately $4.5 billion CAD over the next three years. These cuts amount to a 2 per cent reduction in funding for Indigenous-Crown Relations and Indigenous Services Canada (ISC). While 2 per cent may seem insignificant, it will remove nearly $2.3 billion in funding from ISC by spring 2030. By making steep cuts to Indigenous Services Canada, the Carney government signals that economic goals outweigh its Charter obligations to protect Indigenous rights and livelihood.

In response to the funding shortfalls caused by Bill C-5, Kahnawà:ke Grand-Chief Cody Diabo is seeking to impose tolls on Highways 132, 138, and 206, routes which link the Island of Montreal and the South Shore by passing through Kahnawà:ke. The tolls are expected to cost around $4.60 CAD.

Roughly 120,000 vehicles travel these routes every day, traversing the Mohawk reserve on their commutes. If Canadians wish to enjoy the benefits of public infrastructure, since public infrastructure is a major focus of Bill C-5, the Mohawk community should also be empowered to charge tolls on the roads that pass through their land. This is not only because these roads rely on sovereign Kahnawà:ke land, but because their funding comes at the direct expense of essential services for Indigenous communities. 

Given that the Quebec government did not expropriate Kahnawà:ke reserve lands to create these roads, it is undeniably within the Mohawk council’s authority to enforce its own road safety and tolling codes in the regions where the highways cross into its territory.

Diabo asserts that this change is not intended to punish Canadians but to push the federal government. Ultimately, Indigenous communities must take measures to prioritize their needs when the government refuses to do so. 

While achieving economic development and infrastructural goals under Bill C-5 is undoubtedly important in light of Trump-led tariff pressure, actualizing these goals must not come at the expense of Indigenous communities’ Charter rights. This approach by the Carney government—positioning the bolstering of Indigenous services and economic growth as somehow incompatible with other legislative goals—perpetuates a vision of governance in which Indigenous communities remain subjects of regulation. If fiscal restraint were truly the motivation, its burden would be distributed evenly across departments. The refusal to enshrine funding for the ISC represents a political choice, not a budgetary necessity. Especially given Canada’s history of violent colonialism and settlement, providing federal funding for Indigenous Peoples to acquire crucial services is the bare minimum if the government has a genuine commitment towards reconciliation.

The Mohawk community’s proposed tolling system is not yet established or installed. Grand-Chief Diabo has stressed that he wishes, first and foremost, to make things ‘right,’ and that this plan will not be completed for the year to come. 

The tolls are not a provocation—they are a clear assertion of Indigenous rights in the face of federal neglect.

Montreal, News, The Tribune Explains

The Tribune Explains: Quebec government ends two provincial immigration streams

by Eren Atac on

More in Montreal:

The Quebec government ended the Quebec Experience Program (PEQ), which included the Quebec Graduates and Temporary Foreign Workers immigration streams, on Nov. 19. The removal of these two pathways leaves the Skilled Worker Selection Program (PSTQ) as the only major pathway for most temporary residents to permanently immigrate to Quebec. These changes follow the government’s cap of 45,000 permanent immigration admissions per year. The Tribune explains what the government’s immigration policy changes will entail for McGill students.

Why did the government remove these two pathways?

The CAQ has been limiting the PEQ for several years, starting with a restrictive reform in 2020, in response to a sharp increase in the number of non-permanent residents in Quebec over recent years. The Quebec government, led by the Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ), has argued that the latest reforms will preserve the French language and make the immigration process more selective. 

Under the province’s old immigration system, many international students became eligible for permanent residency shortly after graduation through the Quebec Graduates PEQ stream. The PEQ had already been suspended from October 2024 through June 2025 before its total cancellation this November. 

How do these changes affect McGill students?

For many McGill students, the Quebec Graduates stream was the primary pathway to permanent residency. It allowed students with a Quebec diploma, such as a bachelor’s, master’s, or PhD, to apply for permanent residency soon after graduation, without requiring extensive work experience or French fluency. Its removal leaves the PSTQ as the only substantial way to stay in the province. 

The PSTQ has stricter requirements, such as proof of B2-level spoken French, at least one year of eligible skilled work experience, and a competitive score on Arrima, Quebec’s point-based immigration system. 

These changes have created greater uncertainty for students who do not possess the required level of French proficiency and had planned to remain in Quebec after graduation. Students with a federal post-graduation work permit (PGWP) now face language barriers that previously did not exist.

What pathways to permanent residency still exist for students?

The PSTQ is now the main pathway to permanent residency for temporary residents of Quebec, including graduating students. Applicants can submit a profile through Arrima and may be selected based on various criteria, such as their French proficiency, work experience, and education. Students who are able to improve their French to the B2 level will gain a significant advantage in the Arrima point system. 

Students may also reconsider immigrating to Quebec altogether, given that other provinces have more accessible immigration pathways through their Provincial Nominee Programs. For example, the Ontario Immigration Nominee Program’s Employer Job Offer: International Student stream allows graduates with a job offer in a skilled position in the province to apply directly for nomination, without needing the points-based ranking used in Quebec. This pathway does not require any job experience, unlike Quebec’s requirement of one year of skilled work to gain residency status.

What transitional measures exist for affected students?

The government has introduced limited transitional measures for individuals affected by the changes. Those who submitted a complete application for residency before Nov. 19 will still be evaluated under the old rules, but students who were planning to apply are no longer eligible. 

While McGill’s International Student Services does not offer advising on permanent residency, students with immigration concerns may contact them for help with temporary immigration documents and maintaining student immigration status.

What are the criticisms of these changes?

Various organizations have levied criticisms against the new changes. The Canadian Immigration Lawyers’ Association condemned the changes for being non-transparent, harming Quebec’s attractiveness to foreign students who hope to fully immigrate to Canada after their educational program. The association also raised concerns about the lack of transitional measures in place for graduate students, who had expected to apply for residency through now-cancelled streams. Additionally, the Bureau de coopération interuniversitaire has criticized the changes for reducing international interest in the province’s educational sector.

Know Your Athlete, Martlets, Sports, Swimming

Know Your Athlete: Rebecca McGrath

by Zain Ahmed on

More in Know Your Athlete:

When most students are just beginning to wake up, Rebecca McGrath, U1 Science, has already been in the pool for hours—counting strokes, chasing splits, and sharpening the details that make her one of McGill Swimming’s most promising rookies. At only 19, the Psychology major made her presence known once again at the University of Toronto Varsity Blues dual meet on Sunday, Nov. 16, winning gold in both the 50 metre and 200 metre backstroke and qualifying for the U SPORTS Swimming Championships in both, as well as the 4×50 metre relay.

Despite her outstanding results, McGrath insisted the meet felt more like a training test than a peak.

“I kind of knew my race plans,” she shared in an interview with The Tribune. “The whole meet was more like training [….] We were all pretty fatigued, taking the train there and back, and it was our fifth weekend racing in suits.”

In Toronto, team points overshadowed the clock for McGill Swimming. McGrath’s 200 metre backstroke performance was where everything clicked.

“The first 100 metres, I set up my race pretty well, so I was already quite ahead [….] In the end, I knew I would win the race,” she explained. “That was the ultimate goal, not the time as much [….] It was really about whoever wins the most golds, whoever places better.”

Like most varsity athletes, McGrath has had to learn to manage more than just race strategy in competition. She detailed the setbacks that impact her time in the pool, and which adversity tends to be the hardest to overcome.

“I think it’s always injuries, as well as motivation, but with schoolwork and swimming load, that’s the hardest,” she said. “I dislocated my knee in the summer [….] [I had] to pull back for a bit, and [the impact] never really goes away.” 

What steadies her is McGill Swimming’s culture, which blends high performance with genuine enjoyment. McGrath’s path to McGill was shaped in part by her longtime coach Peter Carpenter, now the head coach at McGill. 

“I never really thought of pursuing swimming in Canada, it was always the [United] States,” McGrath explained. “But after my recruitment trip [to McGill] and [getting to have] Peter as a coach, […] I love his energy. That’s when I decided I wanted to continue varsity in Canada.”

She credits Carpenter as a major reason she thrives in the program.

“He makes people enjoy the sport. Not only do well in it, [but] he lets us have a good work-life balance, which is so hard to do,” McGrath emphasized.

This fall, McGrath also competed at the World Aquatics Swimming World Cup in Toronto after qualifying at summer nationals. Racing in heats alongside world record holders was a surreal milestone.

“Everything they do is so insane, [yet] they’re so smiley and relaxed in the ready room. I admire them so much,” McGrath shared.

Balancing elite swimming with McGill’s academics is demanding, but Collège d’enseignement général et professionnel gave McGrath a strong foundation. Not only intense with her academic goals, McGrath has an ever-determined attitude when it comes to the competitive nature of varsity swimming. Looking ahead to the rest of the season, McGrath stays humble but ambitious as an athlete competing at the highest level. 

“There’s always something to improve, even if it’s just milliseconds. That’s what keeps it exciting,” she affirmed. “I feel like there’s still so much room to grow.”

McGrath did not hesitate to share what she loves most about McGill’s swimming program. 

“The team atmosphere,” she exclaimed. “Yesterday we had music on deck, Peter was singing and turning up the volume, and everyone was enjoying themselves as friends while still working hard.”

In a perfect segue, her advice to future McGill varsity athletes is simple: “Don’t take it too seriously. Have fun. It’s such a fun experience, really.”

With national and international race experience already behind her, McGrath is proving that joy, balance, and belief might be her most powerful tools in the pool.

Commentary, Opinion

Fare dodging: Transit accessibility tactic or detractor?

by Sofia Lay on

More in Commentary:

Fare dodging, for many urban dwellers, is simply a part of life. Whether it be leaping over a turnstile at the metro entrance or sneaking onto the back of the bus, the practice of evading public transit fees is regarded by many as innocuous and commonplace. Over the past decade, fare dodging in Montreal has become a community affair with a social mission. Facebook group “Contrôle en cours – STM” claims to promote transit accessibility by sharing live alerts that help passengers avoid STM constables while fare dodging. Yet the movement overlooks the importance of supporting public transit through paid ridership to the detriment of low-income passengers. 

Contrôle en Cours was founded in 2017 and has since amassed over ten thousand members. Though the group “cannot change what [public transit] costs,” they have dedicated themselves to ensuring “those who cannot afford [transit] costs risk less when attempting to use it.” The movement is not a reaction to recent Société de transport de Montréal (STM) strikes, as per recent clarification from the group moderator. Contrôle en Cours’s mission is built upon the implicit claim that Montreal transit pricing is problematically inaccessible. In reality, however, over 35 per cent of Montrealers are already eligible for free or reduced-price riding; the remaining 65 per cent of STM riders pay a $3.75 CAD metro fare that is either comparable or cheaper than transit fares in many other major cities. Of course, there are many people for whom even reduced transit fare is too expensive, and it is imperative that the city address this issue through rapid policy change; for example, Projet Montréal candidate Luc Rabouin proposed an STM pricing model that extends reduced transit fare to all residents making less than $30,000 CAD a year. Ultimately, the growing movement of STM fare dodging is centred on the debate over how much riders should pay for public transit, if at all. 

There is a common sentiment within fare-dodging circles that fee evasion is justified by the overarching principle of free (or at least, reduced-cost) public transit. Yet, in other public service contexts, citizen buy-in is both expected and respected. Per the Revenu Québec income tax rates, Quebecers pay 14 per cent to 25 per cent income tax each year, which is redirected to fund critical public services such as healthcare and education. In doing so, citizens support the government services that they then benefit from. There is no reason why public transit should be exempt from this model. The STM is heavily underfunded, and fare-dodging initiatives that reduce revenue will only decrease transit quality for residents. 

Low-income Montrealers are disproportionately impacted by fare dodging. The practice diverts revenue from the STM that could instead be directed towards positive improvements to the public transit system, such as faster service and increased routes. Because low-income residents are more dependent on the STM than wealthy residents, they stand to benefit—or suffer—most when it comes to its budgeting. For many people, the STM is their primary, if not only, mode of transportation. A well-funded, functioning public transit system is crucial for supporting the mobility of Montreal residents who cannot afford cars. Choosing to evade transit fares is a personal decision that has a collective negative impact on financially vulnerable populations who choose not to partake in fare dodging. 

Decreasing STM revenue through fare evasion is counterproductive to the stated goals of fare-dodging groups: Ensuring transit accessibility regardless of economic status. Groups like Contrôle en Cours have noble aims, but employ tactics that decrease rider accessibility. Contrôle en Cours should lobby for universally applied structural accessibility reforms that are more likely to have a long-term positive impact on transit equity in lieu of band-aid measures such as fare evasion. Generally speaking, fare dodgers should direct their resistance away from the STM and towards the Quebec government. Policy solutions such as broadened fare assistance programs and STM-oriented budget reallocation will promote mobility equity without dismantling the transit system on which this aim relies. 

Commentary, Opinion

The poppy ban gets neutrality wrong

by Defne Feyzioglu on

More in Commentary:

Everything is political—but not everything should be policed. This is the tension that sits at the heart of a recent decision in Nova Scotia, in which the judiciary ruled that court staff must seek the presiding judge’s permission to wear the Remembrance Day poppy, terming it a ‘symbol of support’ and therefore a potential threat to judicial integrity. By treating a symbol of remembrance as a potential source of bias, the ruling reflects an increasingly expansive understanding of neutrality—one that risks conflating civic expression with a threat to impartiality.

There is a crucial distinction between the appearance of bias and the presence of meaning; this ruling treats them as one. Judicial ethics rightly guard against symbols that relay allegiance to a litigant, a cause under adjudication, or an ideology that could shape ruling. A poppy, however, does not inherently function this way—its meaning is diffuse and collective rather than targeted. Treating it as inherently biased collapses the difference between symbols that influence outcomes and ones that simply coexist alongside them. 

The poppy is political, but labelling it as such is not the same as calling it partisan. Politics refers to how power, identity, history, and the state are organized—it does not refer to a specific party or platform. The poppy embodies narratives of sacrifice, national memory, and wartime identity. That alone makes it a political symbol, even if it is not an overtly partisan one.

Under the same definition, flags are political, as are national holidays, military commemorations, and remembrance in general. Courts themselves are political spaces as well; they interpret laws, settle constitutional disputes, and issue decisions that can shape public policy. Their rulings directly determine how power is distributed and how collective identities are recognized or constrained. Acknowledging this political dimension should reinforce a proportionate approach to neutrality within procedural obligations—such as appropriate attire and use of symbols—in the courtroom. Treating the objective of neutrality as being the omission of all political meaning not only misunderstands both the nature of the courts and the purpose of the civic symbols, but also applies a selectively drawn standard for defining political expression. 

The core issue here is not whether to call the poppy apolitical; it is how far the principle of judicial neutrality should be extended. Judges hold unique decision-making power, and their impartiality must be protected. But instead of clarifying neutrality, this ruling blurs the line between legitimate safeguards and excessive policing of symbols.

The ban sets a precedent where neutrality becomes hyper-sanitized, erasing shared civic or cultural expressions. The judiciary risks creating an environment where staff cannot express any identity or memory, even shared ones. A similar dynamic plays out in Quebec under Bill 21, which prohibits certain public servants—including judges, police officers, prosecutors, and teachers—from wearing religious symbols. The bill targets items such as crosses, hijabs, turbans, and yarmulkes. When certain symbols, often those tied to minority communities, are singled out for removal, neutrality stops being a shield for fairness and becomes a tool that shapes whose identities are acceptable in public life. 

The poppy has never meant one thing to everyone, and its meaning has shifted over time. Originally a symbol of mourning after the First World War, it later evolved into a symbol that honours veterans, and in some circles, it is critiqued as a marker of militarism. That evolution alone reflects a broader conversation about how nations remember conflict; the symbol’s plurality is precisely why calling it ‘apolitical’ flattens its history. Recognizing the political complexity behind the poppy is not disrespectful—it is honest. Yet complexity does not automatically justify restriction. Extending judicial neutrality rules to court staff and banning all political symbolism is a reductive approach that overlooks how ubiquitous and unavoidable political meaning is in public life. 

If neutrality demands the erasure of all political meaning, then it becomes indistinguishable from a void. It asks people to shed their histories at the courthouse door. Justice does not become more legitimate when those who deliver it appear stripped of identity. That is neither realistic nor desirable. 

The poppy’s politics are real, but they are not inherently dangerous. What is dangerous is a fragile conception of neutrality that cannot withstand a symbol of remembrance. A justice system confident in its own impartiality should not fear the influence of the poppy nor the people who choose to wear it. The court’s goal should be to prevent real bias, not to pretend political meaning can ever be fully removed from public institutions.

Features

The cost of McGill’s excellence

by Mairin Burke on

More in Features:

Over the last two years, McGill has widely publicized its rise in the QS World University Rankings, which most recently identified the university as Canada’s top school and the 27th best worldwide. However, this publicity obscures a jarring campus reality from community awareness: Academic staff continue to call out McGill for the unfair working conditions that underlie such excellence.

For three years, McGill faculties have moved towards unionizing beyond the McGill Association of University Teachers (MAUT), a body that does not permit academic staff to collectively bargain as true faculty unions would. Unionization has allowed professors—such as members of The Association of McGill Professors of Law (AMPL)—to formally strike for better wages and protections.

To avoid demonizing faculty strikes at McGill, it is crucial to examine the financial inequities that—until recently—McGill’s non-unionized professoriate has been subject to. Until McGill’s administration properly recognizes its staff contributions, the university cannot be the equitable, leading institution of excellence it proclaims itself to be. 

…

McGill’s professorial salary infrastructure, designed prior to faculty unionization on campus, is just one example of exploitative working conditions at the university. In an interview with //The Tribune//, Dr. Tim Elrick, Director of McGill’s Geographic Information Centre and Committee Chair of the May 2025 Report of the MAUT ad hoc Committee to Examine the Status of Salaries and Benefits at McGill, discussed the high income inequality across the university’s staff salaries represented in the report. 

Using a metric called the Gini coefficient, the MAUT report indicates a “concerning case” of McGill setting aside a limited amount of money to pay all its staff salaries. A few “superstar,” public-facing, tenured professors net very high payouts through a merit-based salary system, while most other staff—often classified as faculty lecturers—earn much less. 

Elrick, moreover, reflected on how McGill “[seems] to be putting women predominantly in low-paid positions” as faculty lecturers or untenured professors, resulting in structural differences in pay between men and women across its academic staff. Income inequality generally, as well as women’s predominant position as lower-paid faculty, is much less prevalent at other Quebec universities than at McGill.

Elrick further discussed how, at McGill, professorial salaries have decreased in real prices since 2016. Meanwhile, at the University of Toronto and the University of British Columbia, median professorial salaries have increased over the same period in an effort to catch up with Canada’s rising house prices.

“This is a very big problem for younger profs [at McGill], [whose] salary cannot keep up [with inflation so that they] cannot purchase a home,” Elrick asserted. “Do profs need to purchase a home? Maybe not. However, rental prices are linked to housing prices. So when housing prices go up, rental prices go up as well.”

…

Under these poor salary conditions, McGill’s employees can expect paltry pensions, as they can only contribute a fixed amount of their salaries to the funds, which is partially matched by the employer. Beyond poor input, the McGill University Pension Plan (MUPP)’s structure reinforces deep inequities that further disadvantage early-career professors while also threatening the stability of even established, tenured professors’ pensions.

Kevin Skerrett, director of Carleton University’s Financialization Research Lab and former Canadian Union of Public Employees pensions specialist, was recently asked by a colleague in McGill’s Faculty of Law to review the MUPP. In an interview with //The Tribune//, Skerrett described McGill’s pension as “technical and complicated,” even with his expertise.

McGill offers a two-tiered pension plan to its employees: One for staff who began working at the university before January 1, 2009 (Part A), and another for all those hired afterwards (Part B). Part A is considered a hybrid plan, combining elements of both defined benefit pensions and defined contribution pensions. Part B can be considered an exclusively defined contribution pension.

Skerrett outlined that, under the hybrid model, McGill guarantees the pensions of Part A employees, legally promising they will receive a minimum payout upon retirement, calculated directly on the basis of their pre-retirement salary and years of work at the university. 

“The employer essentially backstops and secures and guarantees that the plan will deliver what’s promised, [regardless of the value of the employee’s contributions alone], and sometimes that might mean [McGill has] to kick in extra money,” he explained.

Skerrett posited that McGill’s decision to redesign its pension structure was likely due to the 2008 financial crisis, which heavily impacted such investment funds and forced employers like McGill to take on a heavier financial burden to guarantee minimum payouts. For McGill’s post-2009 Part B employees, there is no guaranteed pension amount.

“The only thing that’s secure [in this defined contribution plan] is how much money gets set aside, but no one has any idea what it will end up producing as a retirement income,” he said. “There are no risks for the employer […] of [needing] to contribute more […] even if things collapse [….] It’s a very inferior, much less comforting and secure pension arrangement.”

Skerrett reported that at McGill, the university contributes payments equivalent to between 7.5-8 per cent of an employee’s salary to both Part A and Part B employee pensions, while at other universities, such as the University of Toronto, Queen’s University, and the University of British Columbia, the employer typically contributes between 9-12 per cent. These lower contribution rates further weaken pension security at McGill. When the employer invests less in employee pensions pre-retirement, there is less money appreciating in value over time in employees’ pension funds.

Skerrett emphasized how the stark inequalities presented by McGill’s two-tiered pension model are known as ‘orphan clauses’ in Quebec, which refers to how they alienate newer workers from their employers and older colleagues.  

“[The university is] basically saying, ‘Okay, well, let’s protect our current employees, and let’s screw the young people,’” he summarized.

Additionally, McGill no longer applies indexation, or adjustment for inflation, to its pension plans, meaning neither its staff pensions nor its staff salaries are attuned to Montreal’s rising cost of living. Meanwhile, Skerrett reports, at the University of Toronto, staff pensions account for indexation protection. 

He also pointed out that under changing Quebec legislation through the 2010s, a new pension plan structured like the MUPP would //no longer be legally permitted by the provincial government//. In fact, McGill’s restructuring was not subject to collective bargaining with any of its unions or employee groups, further removing the pension plan from the people who depend on it. 

“McGill in 2009 had a wonderful situation from an employer perspective, which is, they could make whatever changes they want, and they wouldn’t have to negotiate them with nonexistent faculty unions. So they did,” Skerrett stated. “They took full advantage [and] imposed this horrible, very reactionary, inequitable change [….] This is very bad, what McGill has done, and they’ve done it unilaterally.”

McGill’s lack of employee consultation on its pension restructuring is reflected by its current Pension Administration Committee (PAC). Rather than operate under a joint governance structure, where both employers and faculty union representatives would oversee pension management—as the University of Toronto’s plan does—five of the PAC’s nine members are appointed by the McGill administration’s Board of Governors. There is only one annual public meeting that all MUPP members can attend.

“[The PAC] is an utterly employer-dominated structure,” Skerrett asserted. “[The PAC is] also entirely bound by confidentiality, so none of us know what goes on behind its closed doors [….] They are not meaningfully accountable to anybody. By all appearances, the PAC, which is chaired by [McGill’s] Associate [Vice-President] of Human Resources, has never challenged anything the employer decides.”

McGill’s Media Relations Office referred //The Tribune// to the existing, public resources on McGill’s website to find information on the university’s pension and salary systems.

…

The importance of addressing salary and pension inequities impacting both newer and older professors at McGill, permitted by McGill’s bad-faith fiscal governance, represents a moral drive behind campus unionization, perhaps even more than a financial one.

In an interview with //The Tribune//, Associate Professor in McGill’s Faculty of Law and its Faculty of Arts’ Department of Political Science Víctor Muñiz-Fraticelli emphasized that the primary motivation behind increasing faculty unionization on campus is the desire for true collegiality amongst staff, rather than financial gain.

“The people who have traditionally been against the unionization of faculty mean by collegiality […] that we settle our disputes over a glass of sherry with the [President of the University],” he explained. “In the few moments when [this] was the case, it was when the university looked very different, [and] generally did not include women, did not include minorities, did not include Jewish people, and certainly did not include people who were outside of the favour of the administration [….] By collegiality, [new faculty unions] mean governance by colleagues, all colleagues, everyone who has an academic title.”

Muñiz-Fraticelli continued by describing this expansive vision of a university where everyone—from contract academic staff to tenured professors—is entitled to participate in governance. He explained that currently, when professors at McGill promoted to the administration receive disproportionate salary increases, they do not return to the professoriate, which erodes the alternation in governance on which collegiality depends and inspires calls for financial justice.

“When the administration […] doesn’t regard us as equal, it doesn’t trust us. We have no reason to trust them in return, and […] this eroded collegiality […] is what eventually led to unionization,” he stated.

Muñiz-Fraticelli discussed how McGill has “been centralizing authority tremendously in James Hall and taking it away from faculties” in recent years, using the 2020 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic as a case study. The administration did not adopt recommendations from both the Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health and the Faculty of Law describing how to better equip McGill’s campus to fight the virus.

“During the COVID crisis, I think a lot of us finally realized that we were employees, because we were treated as employees and only as employees by the administration, [who] was beholden more to political pressure [and to pressure] from external donors and public opinion generally,” Muñiz-Fraticelli expressed.

In the ensuing push for true collegiality, respect, and visibility for professors—represented by AMPL’s ultimately successful unionization in November 2022—the stark discrepancies between what MAUT can offer academic staff versus a true faculty union became clear to Muñiz-Fraticelli. 

During AMPL strikes from April to September of 2024, as the union fought for better working conditions in their collective agreement with the McGill administration, the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) Defence Fund offered AMPL an interest-free loan of $1 million CAD, allowing them to fully pay striking professors’ foregone salaries. 

For Muñiz-Fraticelli, this massive show of solidarity from CAUT and other groups, such as the Fédération québécoise des professeures et professeurs d’université, helped validate that unions are necessary and sustainable modes of labour advocacy.

“[Myself and other AMPL members] broke down crying because we realized that we could win, but winning takes resources, because we all have to have to pay our mortgages during the strike, and the union, with the help of CAUT, covered our net salaries during the strike so that we could hold on until the university met our demands,” Muñiz-Fraticelli described.

…

As McGill increases austerity measures and slashes hundreds of jobs amid financial challenges, public attention often falls on how budget cuts will impact the university’s student experience. Yet a //massive// driver of this student experience is McGill’s professoriate, who, austerity measures aside, have been poorly compensated for their excellent teaching and groundbreaking research for decades.

Campus unions’ emphasis on true collegiality—which would increase transparency and accountability throughout McGill’s community—is a critical step in calling attention to, and inspiring campus-wide empathy in the face of, systems at McGill that put employees second time and time again. The university’s murky salary and pension systems can only be addressed when brought to light. And only when McGill’s administration pushes towards stronger fiscal and governance protections for academic staff can it wear the mantle of excellence in good conscience.

Muñiz-Fraticelli stated definitively that unions—though they may cost professors higher dues than MAUT—provide academic staff the resources they need to fight for and achieve better working conditions at McGill.

“The university originally was a guild, a labour union of sorts,” Muñiz-Fraticelli emphasized. “[Unions] have better and more effective representation, more effective bargaining power, […] the possibility of strikes and withholding our labour. The result is higher benefits, higher salaries and better working conditions. So in fact, you shouldn’t think of [union dues] as just paying more money, but rather as an investment.”

Science & Technology

World Antimicrobial Resistance Awareness Week at McGill

by Mairin Burke on

More in Science & Technology:

Every year, from Nov. 18 to Nov. 24, the World Health Organization (WHO) observes World Antimicrobial Resistance Awareness Week (WAAW), recognizing antimicrobial resistance (AMR) as one of the greatest modern threats to global development and public health. AMR was responsible for 1.27 million deaths worldwide in 2019 alone.

McGill’s own AMR Centre works year-round to raise awareness about this pernicious phenomenon. Founded in 2021 by Dr. Dao Nguyen, with backing from bodies such as the McGill Interdisciplinary Initiative in Infection and Immunity and McGill’s Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, the AMR Centre brings together McGill professors from over 20 different departments to find innovative, interdisciplinary research solutions to AMR. The centre specializes in academic work on AMR diagnostics, therapeutics, and prevention strategies. 

The support and funding from WAAW give the AMR Centre a particular opportunity to expand public understanding of AMR with the aim of reducing its emergence and spread. In an interview with The Tribune, McGill PhD Candidate in Microbiology & Immunology and AMR Centre Outreach Team co-lead Sophia Goldman explained what AMR is. According to her, basic knowledge of AMR is the first step in halting the public health crisis it creates.

“[AMR] occurs when microorganisms like bacteria, viruses, fungi and even parasites make changes or adaptations over time to develop the ability to no longer [respond] to the drugs that are designed to kill them,” Goldman said. “In the big picture, this makes infections really hard to treat, and increases […] the spread of disease [….] [AMR] is mainly caused by the misuse and the overuse of antibiotics.”

AMR Centre Outreach Team co-lead and MSc student in Microbiology, Ashley McGibbon, described other factors contributing to AMR’s proliferation.

“Doctors and medical practitioners tend to prescribe antibiotics as the solution for everything, even though they’re only able to target bacterial infections,” McGibbon said in an interview with The Tribune. “[AMR is] also induced by the lack of investment by pharmaceutical companies […] into making new antimicrobials [….] Antibiotics are also used in a lot of agriculture [in soils, which] can promote [AMR’s development].”

Goldman outlined key solutions for preventing AMR on an individual basis: Taking antibiotics as prescribed and especially finishing them completely, keeping up with vaccination schedules to prevent infection, not sharing antibiotics or consuming expired ones, washing hands frequently, and staying home when sick.

McGibbon echoed the power of these independent choices in contributing to communal safety.

“Small actions add up,” she said. “If every person takes the time to make themself aware about this global health issue, it can inspire change and support responsible antimicrobial use, which will collectively help safeguard public health for generations to come.”

This week, the AMR Centre will be holding three public pop-up events to challenge pre-existing notions of AMR: On Nov. 18 at Macdonald Campus, and on Nov. 20 at the downtown campus’ Redpath Library, as well as at the McGill University Health Centre. The Centre will also host a scientific symposium on Nov. 19 exploring solutions to antimicrobial resistance, at the McGill Faculty Club from 11:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. 

On Nov. 21 from 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m., Dr. Eric Nelson from the University of Florida will run a seminar at the Goodman Cancer Institute discussing AMR diagnostic developments. To round out the week on Nov. 24, the Centre will host an online student roundtable discussion on the WHO’s latest AMR reports from 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m.

Throughout Nov. 18 to 24, the AMR Centre will enter anyone who posts themselves wearing blue alongside the hashtag #GoBlueWithMcGill—in honour of the WHO’s AMR awareness “Go Blue Campaign”—into a raffle. In solidarity with WAAW, the McCall MacBain Arts Building will be lit in blue on Nov. 24. 

Goldman emphasized what she hopes the McGill community will most take away from the AMR Centre’s WAAW events.

“Everyone’s interaction and experience with antimicrobials can affect everyone else around them, within Canada and even worldwide,” she said. “Everyone […] doing their little part matters.”

Editorial, Opinion

Sudan’s genocide is fueled by global and local apathy toward Black lives

by The Tribune Editorial Board on

More in Editorial:

In April 2023, the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) paramilitary group descended into a civil war. Since then, both groups have executed large-scale massacres and targeted ethnic cleansing against Black, non-Arab ethnic groups, such as the Masalit, Fur, and Zaghawa peoples. This genocide—enabled by a complicit international community and funded by the investment portfolios of Western institutions—has killed over 150,000 people, with approximately 9 million displaced internally and 1.8 million fleeing Sudan as refugees.

The ongoing genocide in Sudan reflects the international community’s racist neglect of Black lives and selective disregard for humanitarian crises in Africa. This apathy is clearly mirrored in institutions like McGill, whose refusal to divest from arms manufacturers signals a shameless willingness to profit from global violence against Black communities. 

This pattern of international inaction is not new. Beginning in 2003, General Omar al-Bashir’s regime carried out a genocidal campaign in Darfur that killed an estimated 300,000 people and displaced roughly 2.7 million individuals. Al-Bashir, in collaboration with the Janjaweed militia, conducted mass killings of Black Darfurians, destroying villages, poisoning wells, and systematically raping women and children. 

Yet the international community egregiously refused to multilaterally recognize al-Bashir’s campaign in Darfur as a genocide. The UN Security Council issued repeated resolutions calling for the cessation of human rights violations and hostilities, but offered no meaningful enforcement mechanisms, declining to authorize major interventions or impose punitive measures. 

Although al-Bashir was overthrown in 2019, today’s civil war stems from many of the same perpetrators of past atrocities in Darfur. Current RSF commander General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo was a Janjaweed leader, and many RSF fighters also fought for the militia group during the Darfur genocide. In failing to intervene meaningfully during the previous civil war, international institutions have effectively enabled the next generation of genocidaires. As such, the same power structures continue to carry out genocidal acts against Sudanese Black ethnic groups today.

Although the RSF and SAF’s military actions today each amount to acts of genocide, the international community has again faltered, refusing to take action beyond symbolic recognition and passive investigation. 

In fact, the very abuses that define Sudan’s ongoing genocide as such—the targeted destruction of a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group—have been reframed by global powers to justify their own neglect and complicity. Overtly racist framings of the genocide by officials and media as ‘tribal conflict’ minimize the responsibility of Western actors to intervene, and reinforce the devaluation of Black lives in Sudan. 

Canada itself, whose Family Reunification Program has served to reunite refugees who have been torn from their families by crisis and war, has largely excluded Sudanese applicants, substantiating the country’s apathy towards the suffering in Sudan. Canada has pledged to admit merely 4,000 refugees from Sudan, while Quebec has refused to admit Sudanese refugees for residence entirely. 

Canada’s institutional response to the genocide in Sudan reveals a glaringly racist double standard. In 2023, the Canadian government did not place a limit on the number of Ukrainians who could apply for refugee status, empowering over 300,000 Ukrainian refugees to enter Canada, an incredible testament to what is possible through effective, welcoming refugee policies. Yet when it comes to the suffering of Black Africans, Canada’s program to address the refugee crisis in Sudan is capped at a low number, reflecting the country’s discriminatory conceptions of whose suffering is urgent and whose is not.

McGill’s own investments in Lockheed Martin and other weapons manufacturers—which directly provide arms to the SAF and RSF—reveal the same selective morality that governs how Canada and the international community allocate humanitarian support. McGill must immediately cease its funding of the genocide in Sudan, as it did in 2006 when it divested from companies doing business in Myanmar (then Burma), and adopt an anti-genocidal framework that values Black lives with the same urgency as other groups facing genocide and mass atrocity.

For the sake of the over 9.5 million people currently internally displaced in Sudan, the over 21 million trapped in famine, and the millions killed throughout generations of civil war. 

Divestment blocks weapons manufacturing at its source. Even with the recently implemented UN arms embargo, the United Arab Emirates continues to arm and finance the RSF. Unless institutions divest, weapons companies will simply find new backers—sustaining the perpetrators of genocide.

When institutions fail to condemn genocide and choose complicity over conviction, the cycle of suffering, neglect, and violence only deepens. McGill’s investments sustain global violence; divestment from Sudan’s genocide is long overdue.

Student Life

It’s a Femininomenon!

by Parisa Rasul on

More in Student Life:

“You have bewitched me, body and soul,” Mr. Darcy declared, over the striking rain on the rolling hills of the English countryside. Many find that this fictional gesture of romance from Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice has all but diminished in 2025. Recently, British VOGUE’s Chanté Joseph released an article entitled “Is Having a Boyfriend Embarrassing Now?” Joseph contends that having a boyfriend has social benefits that women want to maintain, yet the idea of being ‘boyfriend-obsessed’ has become decidedly gauche. For women today, it’s less Pride and Prejudice, and more Pride and Poorly Dressed. The question remains—do the women of McGill concur?

In an interview with The Tribune, Léa Finch, U1 Arts and Science, expressed surprise at this recent sentiment.

“[It] feels like the article kind of came out of nowhere [….] There’s no need to bring down men with it [….] Having a boyfriend doesn’t change you being able to have power and show it off.”

On the other hand, Adhara Scholten, U0 Arts, found the article’s topic to come from ‘somewhere,’ replete with contemporary social context. 

“I think it’s a result of a lot of social […] policies against women, restricting women, [and] a lot of stories […] publicly made about, rape, for example […] Gisèle Pelicot [….] Then we think of [the 4B] movement in Korea. [In the article] the narrative blames women. It asks, ‘are women embarrassing themselves by having relationships with men?’” 

As women’s suffering becomes increasingly public through social media and fourth-wave feminist activism, the world is more attuned to the realities of rape, femicide, and female health. As a result, the flaws of patriarchal government and social institutions have become increasingly apparent. In her article, Joseph wrote that in Western history, a woman’s value was entrapped in a relationship with a man.

This narrative has shifted into an era where society can begin to question these inherently asymmetrical heteronormative roles, and decide whether we should still abide by their social laws. With women no longer requiring a male counterpart to guarantee their basic needs, singleness is a more viable option. However, it is time we start questioning male hegemony instead of blaming women for their lack of a partner. 

Anastassia Haidash, U4 Arts, explained her position on boyfriend embarrassment.

“I don’t necessarily find it embarrassing in itself to have a nice, caring boyfriend, but I find it embarrassing how we’ve kind of come to let ourselves be more disrespected and taken advantage of in terms of these, like, situationships.”

Vanessa Hellsten, U0 Arts and Science, expressed a similar sentiment.

 “[W]hen [women] […] pardon a lot of the man’s mistakes, […] you need to be able to hold them accountable, and yourself accountable.”

Women who are navigating McGill’s dating scene must contend with men’s shortcomings. As Hellsten points out, accountability is especially important in this context, to assure a nourishing reciprocal relationship rather than one sustained out of hegemonic expectations of heterosexual coupling. 

However, without accountability, the rampant misogyny of the ‘male loneliness epidemic’—a patriarchally fabricated notion—continues to fuel the fire of ‘red pill ideology’ and incel culture. Specifically, in the ‘manosphere’—a network of online misogynist groups— men refer to women and feminist ideologies as the stem of male frustration. 

Haidash further observes that embarrassment on campus may stem from the concern that a boyfriend may interfere with academic success.

“It definitely may seem more embarrassing at McGill to have a boyfriend, because […] for women, […] everyone here is so, so insanely devoted to their schooling and whatnot, and having a man get in the way of that is lame and awful.” 

This observation about how having a boyfriend may become an obstacle to a woman’s success is what the manosphere demonizes. Women succeeding threatens the misogynist’s preferred gender hierarchy—one that depends on limiting female autonomy and achievement, and where simply being of the male sex can overtake that achievement. 

These changing gender roles within heterosexual relationships underpin the true question British Vogue’s article is asking, or rather telling us. Women no longer need to, or should, be defined by their romantic male counterparts.

Field Hockey, Martlets, Sports

McGill Athletics’ varsity program restructuring: Town hall updates

by Lialah Mavani on

More in Field Hockey:

Following the announcement of the upcoming varsity review, McGill Athletics hosted a town hall on Nov. 7 to promote transparency for its club and varsity teams. Perry Karnofsky, Athletics Director of Wellness Programs and Facility Operations, and Daniel Méthot, Athletics Director of Sport Programs, led the meeting. 

Karnofsky and Méthot explained that the varsity review has three aims. The first is rebalancing programming and facility allocation between varsity teams, competitive clubs, and recreational activities. The second is consolidating all athletic programs under a single umbrella, which McGill Athletics claims will improve both the competitive athletic experience at McGill and the student experience at McGill’s Sports Complex. 

The third concern, which Karnofsky and Méthot emphasized, is that the review is fundamentally about capacity: With McGill’s current financial and athletic resources, Athletics’ focus is on how to allocate these limited resources most effectively.

Méthot then outlined the process that the review committee is using to reorganize the current varsity structure. McGill Athletics is moving from a three-tier system to a ‘four-group approach’ that aims to more fairly evaluate and accommodate varsity teams that do not align with the Réseau du sport étudiant du Québec (RSEQ) format. 

Currently, all teams in McGill’s three tiers of varsity status must compete in an RSEQ league. The differentiation between the groups is dependent on teams’ competition formats at the provincial and national levels. For instance, tier one sports must be represented at three academic levels across Quebec: High school, Collège d’enseignement général et professionnel (CEGEP), and university level. Teams identified as tier one must also have a national championship, hosted by U SPORTS. Tier two includes sports that are represented at only the university level, but still have a national U SPORTS championship. Tier three also consists of sports that compete at the university level, but that only have an RSEQ provincial championship. 

While the review process has allowed for more open discussion among current varsity and club teams and McGill Athletics, some existing teams remain in a state of uncertainty and anxiety about getting cut.

Avery Berry, U1 Arts and Science, and forward on the Martlets Varsity Field Hockey team, shared in an interview with The Tribune that she is unsure where this leaves teams like hers. 

“We’re not in the RSEQ. We don’t recruit. We often don’t have as many home games, and we’re fully self-funded. So how [McGill Athletics] would take this into account in the auditing process was pretty unclear,” she stated.

Berry noted that McGill Athletics has not concretely communicated how the restructuring will affect teams, such as Field Hockey, in unique situations. If her team’s status changes, Berry explained, they risk losing key off-season resources such as access to the varsity weight room and Strength and Conditioning coaches, as well as crucial visibility and outreach tools like media exposure.

For club teams like McGill’s Nordic Ski Club, the review does not just determine their competitive level—it determines whether they can operate at all.

Nordic Ski Co-Captains Astrid Scarth-Lella, U3 Arts, and Molly Tinmouth, U3 Arts and Science, said in an interview with The Tribune that the uncertainty around the varsity review has been especially difficult for their team, in part because they feel McGill Athletics is not familiar enough with their club to make an informed decision about its status. 

“They don’t really know our training, our performance, or how we operate,” Scarth-Lella said. “They’ve been very unclear about how many teams are going to be cut or have their status changed.”

Tinmouth added that competitive clubs and teams feel pitted against each other, even though they all offer something vital to the student body.

Despite the administration’s attempts to foster open conversations on Nov. 7, many athletes did not get the answers they were looking for. The goal of the town hall was transparency, but the outcomes it discussed remain unpredictable. As teams await their fates, the potentially precarious future of the next season of McGill Athletics looms large.

Sports Editor Clara Smyrski is captain of the McGill Women’s Field Hockey team. She was not involved in the writing, editing, or publication of any section of this article that discusses Field Hockey.

1 … 35 36 37 38 39 … 1,363

Read the latest issue

Read the latest issue