Four years ago, McGill announced that it would begin the first stage of underground investigation on the site of the former Royal Victoria Hospital (RVH). Sustainability Park, formerly called the New Vic Project, was described by provost, Christopher Manfredi, as “the most significant project our university has undertaken since its inception.” The Société québécoise des infrastructures (SQI) is responsible for the entire site, and has been working with McGill on the project since the site was vacated in 2015.

However, the project has been stalled by fierce resistance and battles in court. The Kanien’kehá:ka Kahnistensera, also known as the Mohawk Mothers, allege that the site holds unmarked graves of Indigenous children. The Indigenous solidarity collective has been fighting the construction since it was proposed, arguing that McGill continues to deny and infringe on the group’s right to investigate those responsible for abuses against Indigenous peoples. “We deserve the opportunity to honour our loved ones and grieve them properly,” the Kahnistensera write on their website.

The group is also committed to searching the grounds for undiscovered evidence related to the CIA’s MK- ULTRA medical program, a series of illegal psychiatric experiments conducted at the Allan Memorial Institute between 1948 and 1964 under Dr. Donald Ewan. Victims were given drugs and psychologically tortured for the purposes of manipulating the psyche: speakers at the vigil detailed the program’s use of electroshock therapy to erase victims’ memories and the ubsequent use of “psychic drilling” to reprogram the mind. Activist and Kanien’kehá:ka nation member, Kahentinetha Horn, described the experiments as “sheer scientific cruelty.”

The Kahnistensera held their first vigil behind the Allan Memorial Institute on May 23, 2025. The event serves as a way to hold space for ancestors, says organizer CJ, as an answer to the questions of how we can educate and commemorate the site. They held 12 vigils throughout the summer of 2025, and returned Friday, Palestine to North America, known as Turtle Island by many of the continent’s Indigenous peoples. “The same thing is happening in many different places,” a participant shared on the “present-day perpetuation of colonialism” that the Kahnistensera describe.

Horn described the series of vigils as an invitation to pay homage to the people who may be buried there. The vigil began behind the Allan Memorial Institute next to the Morgan pool, which was constructed at the height of the MK-ULTRA experiments. “You can’t just take children and throw them in a mass grave and cover them up,” Horn said during the vigil. She expressed that the vigils are part of the responsibility to take care of those children. “When we’ve completed our mission here, we will come back and have a closing ceremony for them,” she promised.

The general sentiment of the vigil was that non-Indigenous residents in Montreal, known as Tiohtià:ke in the language of the Kanien’kehá:ka, are living on stolen Indigenous land. “This whole island of Montreal is Mohawk,” Horn stated. “This land is Mohawk land. [Tkaronto] is Mohawk land too. Ontario is a Mohawk name.” She reiterated that McGill is built on Mohawk land, echoing the Kahnistensera’s statement that “McGill is a gravesite,” and that “it’s all built on blood,” as written in their handout. “I hope some day you take the time to learn the history,” Horn said, urging attendees to listen to Indigenous voices.

In the 2022 announcement of the archaeological investigation of the former RVH site, the McGill Reporter wrote that “the university is mindful that in recent times there have been troubling discoveries in parts of Canada linked to the Residential School System, and that many members of our campus and broader community are deeply impacted by this. Hence, in the spirit of reconciliation, McGill’s work with the SQI is and will always be grounded in caution, and will involve ongoing conversation with local traditional and elected Indigenous leaders.”

The legal battle between McGill and the Kahnistensera has been long and ongoing. In March 2022, the Kahnistensera filed a lawsuit against McGill and the SQI alleging that the former hospital grounds contain unmarked gravesites. An October 2022 court decision from the Superior Court of Quebec granted the Kahnistensera with an injunction that halted development until a proper archaeological investigation could be conducted. Both parties agreed to appoint a panel of three archaeologists, which was mandated to assess and identify the archaeological techniques to be used on the site for the detection of human remains and unmarked graves.

“McGill is destroying evidence and making it harder for people to find their lost family members as we speak,” the @takebacktekanonontak Instagram account, dedicated to solidarity with the Kahnistensera, wrote in a March 2024 post. “McGill is continuing construction regardless of the damage it could cause to those searching for their lost family members and to those wishing to find more evidence regarding the CIA’s MK-ULTRA medical program.”

Nonetheless, McGill maintains that there are no human remains on the site. They deny that Historic Human Remains Detection Dogs (HHRDD) detected remains, and claim that the bone fragments found during the investigation are from animals and hold “no relation to or indication of clandestine human burial.” During a tour of the site at the vigil, the Kahnistensera claimed that many of the fragments were too small to identify, and that the university never performed the lab analysis that they claimed to have conducted. They write in a flyer that several pieces of evidence of human remains have been found, and that McGill, Quebec, and the SQI refuse to respect forensic practices. In the Instagram post advertising the vigil, @takebacktekanontak lists the “results of three remote-sending technologies” used near the Morgan pool, confirmed by Askîhk Research Services (run by the SQI) as “three separate lines of evidence supporting the presence of human remains.” These include ground penetrating radar, HHRDD, and “subterra grey probe, [which identifies] burials by detecting fatty acids resulting from soft tissue decomposition and changes in soil compactness from digging burial shafts.”

The overall cost of the project, including planning, restoring, and construction, is projected to be 870 million dollars. Amid budget cuts over the past two years, the university has described the Sustainable Park project as “a top priority for McGill…[that] will continue.” “Where is this money coming from?” the Kahnistensera asks. “Where is your tuition going? What are you paying for?”

McGill writes that the allegations that there may be unmarked graves on the RVH site are currently being investigated. “They just don’t know what to do, because we can’t stop,” stated Horn. “We have our duty, we’re not going to stop, we’ll never stop.”

The post “McGill is a Gravesite”: Kanien’kehá:ka Kahnistensera Hold Vigil for Indigenous Children appeared first on The McGill Daily.

It happens to the best of us: a neglected sleep schedule, long hours at the library, or too many house parties can quickly turn a stubborn cold into a serious health risk. In the face of a medical scare, it can be challenging to know where or how to access care, especially for international or out-of- province students. 

That’s where HeyDoc comes in. Launched on July 31, 2026, HeyDoc is a free online resource built to guide students through Montreal’s healthcare system. In partnership with GTR Santé, a Quebec-based private healthcare network, HeyDoc’s “speak-with-a-practitioner” function allows students to text or call nurses in real time. 

The Daily spoke with co-founders Ella Durno and Shoshana Iny, fourth-year McGill students studying General Management and International Development respectively. We talked about the sources of strain on Quebec’s healthcare system, the importance of accessible and affordable care, and how empathy can change people’s lives for the better.

This interview has been edited for clarity and conciseness. 

Enid Kohler for The McGill Daily (MD): I want to start with the basics. Imagine you’re at a house party and a student asks you about HeyDoc. How would you describe it to them? 

Shoshana Iny (SI): We’re a startup to help students access care as easily as possible, especially for out- of-province or international students. We both have recognized the difficulties trying to access free, same- day healthcare in Quebec. That’s our goal — just to help as many students as possible. 

Ella Durno (ED): I would paraphrase it as their Montreal healthcare concierge. It’s a healthcare … one-stop shop to help navigate the system, no matter their background, their language, their insurance coverage, their age, or gender identity. On top of that, we have an opportunity for them to speak with nurses directly, because sometimes it’s a lot easier and more comfortable to speak to a real human. 

MD: Why did you start HeyDoc? What prompted the idea? 

SI: We initially became friends through the Integrated Management Student Fellowship (IMSF), which is a year-long program through the Desautels Faculty of Management that brings together students from a variety of faculties who are broadly interested in social impact and positive change-making. 

As a part of the fellowship, you have to create a sustainable startup related to one of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. We came up with the idea of wanting to be aligned to SDG 3, which is good health and well-being. 

Ella and I built on that vision. We reflected on our own experiences as out-of- province students who have really struggled when … [accessing] different kinds of healthcare in Quebec. And we realized that there would be a real opportunity to help students in Quebec access healthcare more easily. That was when HeyDoc was born. 

ED: Coming to a new city and a new province, it can be so overwhelming for so many reasons. When it comes to healthcare, that’s just another thing that you don’t know how to navigate. 

MD: You already touched on this a bit, but can you describe your observations about challenges when it comes to access to healthcare among McGill students more broadly? 

SI: Looking more broadly at the system, some of the current pain points that we identified during our research is a huge lack of family doctors in Quebec. International student population aside, even people that are already living here are struggling to access family doctors, which is burdening the system. There are huge strains on ERs as a result of that. Because of the family doctor shortage, coupled with the fact that walk-in clinics aren’t really common here, that creates this pervasive issue where there are not a lot of accessible, free same-day health care options. 

MD: In the process of launching HeyDoc, were there any challenges that you encountered?

ED: We launched this summer, when we were both working full-time jobs, which was one of the biggest challenges. Initially, it was also a challenge that neither of us had any technical experience in web development.

SI: I think the other part that we both struggled with was just navigating creating a real business, especially as undergraduate students. I’m not in Management; I felt as though I didn’t have any substantial background on the start-up scene or in entrepreneurship. It can be a bit daunting launching this new venture, putting yourself out there, especially on social media, without knowing how people will react. 

But it’s been amazing to see the overwhelming support from both friends and family, and also people that we don’t know who come up to us, saying that they wish they’d had this in their first year. That’s really given us the encouragement to keep going forward and trying to grow the platform.

ED: Adding onto that, just the uncertainty of pouring everything we have into an idea that we believed in and not being sure how the community would react was stressful. But since launching, it’s [been] nice to see that there is a big demand for it. 

MD: Looking five or ten years down the line, what is your vision for the future of HeyDoc? 

ED: I would love for HeyDoc to be known as the go-to resource for students, maybe [students from] other universities as well, trying to navigate the healthcare system in Montreal. 

SI: Right now, our focus is as much growth as possible, because that’s how we can positively impact as many students as possible. 

MD: The tagline for this column is “good people doing good things.” In the context of your work with HeyDoc, what does being a “good person” mean to you? 

SI: I think just leading with empathy and having that guide both your personal values and your professional aspirations. That’s always been really integral to my life and what I see for myself in the future. I’m really grateful to have the opportunity with HeyDoc to be putting that into real-world practice. 

ED: I was going to say something very similar about being very intentional about your values and how you choose to follow them on a day-to-day basis. That looks different for everyone, but I think if you have strong values and stay true to them, you can make a positive impact. 

You can learn more about HeyDoc via email at info@heydocmtl.com, their Instagram page @heydocmtl, or their website, heydocmtl.ca, to make a free account and use HeyDoc’s services. 

If you know good people doing good things who you would like to see featured in this column, email news@mcgilldaily.com.

The post Student Start-Up Provides Free Healthcare Resources for McGill Students appeared first on The McGill Daily.

By September 8, this decision was challenged in the Superior Court of Quebec. Justice Sylvain Lussier ordered Elections Quebec to send voter reminder cards in both French and English eight days later. The ruling came after an English-language rights advocate, Geoffrey Chambers, argued that French-only communication limited voter access to essential electoral information and risked skewed participation. 

French-only to Bilingual 

Bill 96, formally known as the Act respecting French, the official and common language of Québec, states that French is the official language of the Québec Nation. Correspondingly, the legislation requires that civil administration exclusively use French. 

Elections Québec stated that Bill 96 indicated the organization could no longer mail election information in both French and English. According to Global News, the agency had previously sought an exemption from Bill 96 that would have allowed it to continue mailing bilingual documents but that request was denied. 

As a result, the agency planned to provide information in English through other means, including a QR code that directed voters to online resources. During the court proceedings, Elections Québec argued that the information itself remained available in English and that instead the issue was whether voters had a right to receive it specifically by mail. 

Accordingly, Chamber’s legal challenge against Bill 96’s provisions for Eléctions Québec focused on whether alternatives provided “sufficient” access. The prosecuting lawyer representing the challenge argued that relying on a QR code could create difficulties for people without smartphones or reliable internet access. 

The court ultimately ordered Élections Québec to produce bilingual voter reminder cards. Although the ruling did not eliminate the broader language requirements established by Bill 96, it did change how those requirements apply to voter information for this specific election.

What Is at Stake for the Parties? 

The dispute also falls within an election in which Québec’s parties hold fervent positions on language and Québecois national identity.

For Parti Québécois (PQ), led by Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, French-only voter materials fortify a campaign built around affirming Quebec’s national identity, preserving the French language, and protecting the province’s sovereignty. The party primarily appeals to a francophone electorate, and its leader has pledged to pursue a sovereignty referendum whether the PQ forms a minority or majority government. A policy that normalizes French as the sole language of government communication therefore aligns closely with both the party’s message and much of its political base. 

The incumbent Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ benefits from presenting itself as a defender of the province’s language-law framework. During the campaign, leader Christine Fréchette defended the French-only cards put forward by her party by arguing that English-speaking voters could still find election information in English elsewhere. 

The Quebec Liberal Party, whose support includes many English-speaking voters, has taken the opposite position. Liberal leader Charles Milliard, called on Fréchette to change the CAQ’s stance, arguing that equal participation requires equal access, not a system in which one linguistic group receives election information at home while another must search for it. 

The controversy also gives the Conservatives an opening to distinguish themselves from the sovereigntist PQ. Leader Eric Duhaime has presented his party as an alternative on the question of Quebec sovereignty and the mail-out dispute. 

The policy of French-only mail-out information, put forward by the CAQ, therefore aligns with the interests of any party whose electoral base is less dependent on English-speaking voters, given the inaccessibility of information regarding where, when, and how to vote. Consequently, the PQ and CAQ bear a potential advantage over the other parties that cannot afford uninformed English-speaking voters, namely the Liberals, the Conservatives, and Québec solidaire. 

The voter card therefore has become a small but visible example of a much broader debate about how Quebec defines the role of the French language in its public institutions and where the limits of policy should lie when it intersects with access to democratic participation.

The post Language Laws Meet the Ballot Box  appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The motion called for “the SSMU General Assembly to compel the President and Vice President of University Affairs to advocate against renewal or reinstatement of the exchange program consistent with SSMU’s existing Policy Against Genocide in Palestine and the Policy on Harmful Military Technology.” While the current exchange agreement, signed in December 2023, is set to renew in 2028, both McGill and HUJI are required to negotiate renewal terms nine months prior, which would be late 2027. 

In order for this motion to be voted on at the GA, a quorum of no less than 350 McGill undergraduate students needed to be satisfied. If passed, the motion states that the SSMU President and VP University Affairs will be called on to present “a motion mirroring the language of [the GA] motion” at the Senate meeting, scheduled for January 13, 2027, per the motion. 

James Thomas Reid, the SSMU Speaker, called the GA to order and opened the assembly with a brief overview of the agenda. This included various summaries of reports including the SSMU executive committee summer report and the Board of Director report both presented by President Hamza Abu-Alkhair, and a report presented by the accountability commissioner Lounes Azzoun. 

Following these announcements, discussion was opened for a finite time, where students were able to ask Abu-Alkhair questions regarding the reports as well as current SSMU activities. The queries ranged from an update on the sudden closure of Midnight Kitchen last year, where Abu-Alkhair answered that SSMU had launched a new Free Lunches program, to questions regarding how to get involved in SSMU. As the questions progressed, more students entered the SSMU ballroom. Reid periodically gave updates on how many more people were needed to meet quorum, causing students in the ballroom to text friends and peers, encouraging them to attend the GA. Reid also clarified that meeting attendance as well as voting was in-person only, standing in accordance with clause 4 in the 2026-2027 SSMU standing rules, which said, “Meetings shall be in person, unless the Steering Committee deems it necessary to be hybrid (in-person and Zoom) for extraordinary reasons.”

At 7:25 PM, quorum was finally met, which led to the end of the question period. A 15 minute recess time was scheduled before the motion was presented, however, this was soon asked to be suspended by a student. The student body voted in favour of this suspension by a large majority, which allowed for the GA to move on to the presentation of the motion. Reid explained how the mover, Sumayya Kheireddine, will be given five minutes to present the motion. 

Similarly to last year’s GA, where her motion on the one day strike for Palestine was passed in, Kheireddine opened her speech by stating that, as of September 28, 2026,  it has been 1086 days since the beginning of the genocide in Gaza. Kheireddine went on to specify that the motion was not about any particular McGill student or faculty member, but rather about the significance of interuniversity institutional relationships. Kheireddine hence encouraged students to vote “yes” on the motion asking McGill to terminate the agreement between the school and HUJI for two reasons; the first being that through its training of Israeli defence and intelligence, HUJI is a part of the Israeli military complex, and the second being that the campus is located on the ruins of the illegally occupied Jerusalem. She encouraged students to recall McGill’s rich history of academic boycott, arguing one cannot treat partnerships as neutral when connected to a military involved in occupation, genocide, and denying Palestinians’ right to education. She further emphasized that by partnering with this institution, McGill normalizes these violations of human rights. 

The time allotted to deliberate this particular motion was 5 minutes. This was followed by a 5 minute question period and a 10 minute discussion period. Both of these periods were quickly suspended by individual students, and passed with a ⅔ majority vote, suggesting that students were eager to move onto voting. Correspondingly, Reid announced the voting period at 7:47 PM. During this time, no one could leave or enter the building. After a few minutes of voting, it was announced that the vote in favour of the motion was passed by a simple majority, and it would thus move on to an online ratification process opening within 7 days of the GA. The room erupted in cheers, chatter, and clapping. 

After the GA, the Daily spoke to a few students about the meeting and the passing of the motion. One student told the Daily, “I’m just really happy everyone showed up tonight and demonstrated substantial support for the movement.” They added, “We show up because we deeply care, and this [voting at a GA] is just one avenue we can add pressure [to the university].”

The Daily also spoke to the Speaker, James Thomas Reid about the importance of student politics. Reid said it was his first time speaking at a General Assembly. When asked if he expected the GA to meet quorum, he replied “I did, yes, because it’s a very pertinent affair. It was a very important meeting and I thought a lot of the student body was very much interested in showing up. So it wouldn’t surprise me that we did.” However, he added, “Did I expect the actual suspension of questions and discussions? I didn’t expect it, but also it wasn’t very surprising.”

Regarding the cheers and clapping after the motion was passed, Reid commented, “It’s unsurprising how people reacted. As I said, this is a very pertinent issue and people are very passionate about that. I’m not surprised of the reaction that happened in the General Assembly, but it was my job to make sure that even though that reaction did happen, we [had to] continue to support order. That was part of my job.”

The ratification was sent to the student body on Friday, October 2 and students will have until October 13 to vote. To pass, the ratification must meet the quorum of at least 10 per cent of the SSMU constituency and receive a simple majority vote. 

The post McGill Students Pass Historic Boycott Motion appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The cost of groceries, access to healthcare, and Quebec’s constitutional future were prominent issues discussed during the first two televised debates of the provincial election. Throughout discussions of affordability and public services, party leaders returned to a recurring disagreement: whether another term of Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ) government or a referendum on independence would bring greater uncertainty.

The September 15 TVA Face-à-Face brought together CAQ leader Christine Fréchette, Liberal Party leader Charles Milliard, Parti Québécois leader Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, Québec solidaire co-spokesperson Ruba Ghazal, and Conservative leader Éric Duhaime for an initial debate in French. They returned the following evening for the Noovo-Crave debate, also in French, with a third debate scheduled for September 23.

François Legault was absent from the stage, but his name was not absent from the debate. Fréchette began by distinguishing herself from Legault, her predecessor. However, her opponents repeatedly brought the discussion back to the CAQ’s past record. After nearly eight years in power, the CAQ faced criticism from opposition leaders over its management of public funds and the state of Quebec’s public services, with its rivals arguing that costly government projects had failed to deliver the improvements Quebecers needed.

St-Pierre Plamondon posited that a change of government could be a chance to reduce waste, while Milliard challenged the CAQ’s economic management. Fréchette disputed criticism from all four of her colleagues of the SIFA health-sector technology project, rejecting the cost figures raised as evidence to dispute her performance.

On affordability, the leaders disagreed over which costs the government should absorb and which revenues it could afford to lose. St-Pierre Plamondon defended removing Quebec’s sales tax, or TVQ, from used goods. Fréchette opposed this proposal, arguing that it would deprive the government of approximately $700 million annually.

Even the grocery aisle became a dividing line over the role of government. Ghazal proposed state-operated grocery stores, while Duhaime challenged the idea of government involvement in food retail, touching on his broader criticism of Quebec’s welfare model. In their opening statements, Ghazal had called for a stronger economy after what she described as poor decisions by previous governments, while Duhaime had identified the model itself as the problem.

The topic of housing also revealed differences in candidate opinions over which campaigns could realize their promises of building more homes. The Liberals’ housing plan aims to eventually build 100,000 new homes annually, through measures including wider use of prefabricated construction and faster permit approvals. However, during the TVA debate, Ghazal questioned whether the party’s proposed funding plan could support its ambitions. This exchange put the practical challenge of financing and delivering new housing on the construction agenda.

Discussions around healthcare brought up a related disagreement over the public versus private provision. During the first debate, Milliard opposed Duhaime’s proposal to expand access to private treatment by using public health insurance cards, arguing that taxpayers should be able to rely on the public system they already help fund. Duhaime maintained that the existing system could not stay the same. This disagreement continued the next night. As reported by 24 Heures, St-Pierre Plamondon argued that greater reliance on private care was not an automatic solution and advocated for strengthening local community service centres (CLSCs), while Duhaime continued to defend the private provision as having the potential to be more efficient.

The future of Santé Québec was another point of contention. Ghazal pressed St-Pierre Plamondon on how quickly he could fulfill the PQ’s promise of abolishing the agency, while the latter maintained that efficiency would not be an issue. Their exchange highlighted the practical question behind institutional reform: how soon would changes to the healthcare system actually be able to reach patients?

The Noovo-Crave debate also included a segment devoted to young people. According to student newspaper Quartier Libre, Milliard and St-Pierre Plamondon discussed youth distress, screen time, education, and artificial intelligence. When asked about taking legal action against major digital platforms’ harm to adolescents’ mental health, Milliard supported the idea, while St- Pierre Plamondon proposed examining its legal feasibility.

Even in the discussion surrounding young people’s mental health, the referendum found its way back into the conversation. Milliard suggested that a sovereignty vote could add to young people’s anxiety; St-Pierre Plamondon argued that it was a constitutional question separate from the issue under discussion.

Immigration generated a particularly sharp divide in the first debate. St-Pierre Plamondon defended the monitoring immigration levels, while Ghazal challenged his comments about second-generation Quebecers putting pressure on schools. Duhaime argued that Quebec’s capacity to receive newcomers had reached its limits, but Ghazal maintained a welcoming approach. Environmental policy also divided Ghazal and Duhaime. In the second debate, Duhaime promoted exploiting Quebec’s natural gas resources, arguing that this could replace other fossil fuels. Ghazal favoured developing clean energy instead.

On Quebec’s relationship with Ottawa, St-Pierre Plamondon said during the TVA debate that he would collaborate with Mark Carney and other provinces as long as Quebec’s interests were respected. Milliard challenged that position, although he defended cooperation within Canada.

By the second evening of debates, Fréchette repeatedly questioned whether the PQ’s referendum plans would create economic instability. Yet she herself faced questions about how she would vote in a referendum. Ghazal supported independence, while Duhaime argued that a referendum would weaken Quebec. The divisions therefore concerned both Quebec’s constitutional future and whether reopening that question should be a priority.

McGill political scientist Daniel Béland observed in his Policy magazine article that crowded stages and interruptions during debates limited how fully leaders could explain their proposals. Across the first two debates, questions about grocery bills, housing, and healthcare repeatedly became questions about Quebec’s political future. Their proposals also invited a more immediate question: what will change for the people paying those bills and waiting for care?

The post The Debate on Quebec’s Next Chapter appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The 25th Annual McGill Powwow was held by the McGill Office of Indigenous Initiatives and John Abbott College at the McGill MacDonald Campus on Friday, September 18. For McGill students on the downtown campus, the day started out grey and cold, the feeble rays of September sunlight blocked by the tall downtown buildings. However, on the Macdonald campus, summer was still in full swing; the powwow took place on Watson Field, where the surrounding trees allowed the sun to shine down on spectators in full. This joyful reminder of summer weather was the perfect preface to the powwow.

In the middle of Watson Field, a white tent reflecting the sunlight served as the centre for activities. Spectators and participants alike lined the perimeter of the tent standing or sitting on the grass and in chairs. Among the spectators were students, various members of the community, local vendors, and dancers.

The powwow was kicked off by the Grand Entry, a traditional opening ceremony, which began with all the dancers entering from the eastern corner of the tent to pay symbolic respect to the Eastern Door. The Kanien’kehá:ka (Ga-niyen-ge-HAA-ga) or Mohawk people, are the Keepers of the Eastern Door due to their traditional eastern territory spanning over parts of Quebec, Vermont, and New York. The dancers moved around the tent in a counter-clockwise circle, as per Mohawk tradition, led by four flag-bearers, including Tom Dearhouse. He carried the Hiawatha Belt Flag, a deep purple banner set with five interconnected white shapes after a wampum belt design representing the five nations of the Haudenosaunee (Hoh-DEE-noh-SHOH-nee) or Iroquois Confederacy. Carried alongside it was the modern version of the Mohawk Warrior Flag designed for the Rotisken’rakéhte (Mohawk Warrior Society), an LGBTQ2S+ flag, and a POW/MIA flag honouring veterans. All four flags were hoisted on two centre poles under the tent. To conclude the ceremony, several different prayers were said and songs were sung.

Following the Grand Entry, participants and spectators settled into the tent for the rest of the day. One side of the tent was allocated to the emcee’s table along with four drum circles, each comprising between five to ten men around a large drum. Throughout the competitions, the different drum circles alternated synchronized performances while singing. The host drum was Black Bear, co-hosted by Spiritwolf Singers, and accompanied by Ottawa River and Eagle River Singers. The different drum groups were there to accompany the different dances during the day. The host drum is the drum group that is responsible for playing during the important events, such as the Grand Entry.

Ahead of the anticipated competition dances, the emcees of the event — Lance Delisle, in English, and Marie-Céline Charron, in French — opened the floor of the tent to all present for an inter-tribal dance. A large group of schoolchildren on a field trip made up the majority of the dance, following the lead dancers in a simple movement pattern where they hopped twice on each foot to the beat of the drums.

The competitions themselves were short, but there were 12 categories in total that were divided by type of dance, gender, and age. The categories for men included Traditional, which encompasses traditional sharptight movements emulating battle-like dancing steps; Fancy, which is a non-traditional dance with more elaborate dramatic movements dance moves and regalia; and Grass, which is meant to mimic the movement of grass in both the regalis and the steps. Women have a similar Traditional category with sharptight steps; the Jingle category, which uses dresses with metal cones hanging from the ress to add more auditory and visual elements; and finally, Fancy Shawl, which is meant to emulate a butterfly through the use of the dancer’s shawls as they dance to a fast beat.

Each category began with around three to ten dancers spread out in the tent as the three judges went to each corner to observe. Once the drum went off, the dancers gave their all. For about one minute, the dancers moved all around the tent, keeping time, and showing off their tricks to the judges until the drum stopped, at which point the dancers held their finishing pose. This cycle continued about three to four times per category. After the dancing was done, the performers lined up in front of the judges.

Once it was time for the Men’s Traditional category, Dearhouse— 63 years old, stepped into the circle with two other dancers. He discussed how he had chosen his regalia to honor his Ojibwe heritage and its traditional teachings. His outfit incorporated the four colours traditionally used by Ojibwe people to represent the cardinal directions: red, black, white, and yellow. Dearhouse also mentioned incorporating the concept of following the sun into his outfit. In Ojibwe culture, the sun is thought of as an elder brother. This idea resonated with Dearhous, as an elder brother himself, and as someone who has many responsibilities as a social worker and an educator of traditional teachings. Dearwood’s regalia consisted of a bustle headpiece made of deer and porcupine, as well as bells around his legs to help him dance in time.

After the competitions ended, a short break was taken to allow dancers to rest and gave the audience the opportunity to look around at the vendors. Observers were able to browse a series of stalls set up outside of the tent that featured Indigenous craftsmakers, McGill associations, Indigenous organizations, and food.

After the break, the performances continued with the Hoop Dance. Hoop Dancing originated in the 1930s, and involves a performer who uses hoops to create shapes to tell a story. In this particular performance, the dancer recreated the motions and shapes of birds using the hoops. This was the only non-competitive performance in the powwow, so the emcees put out a rug and encouraged people to leave tips.

The powwow concluded with the announcement of the winners for each category and the closing ceremony. The 25th Annual McGill Powwow was a beautiful event that celebrated and fostered a place for learning more about Indigenous culture. Instead of looking through the colonial lens of a textbook, take the time to go to a powwow and see for yourself what some aspects of Indigenous culture looks like. To attend, check out the McGill Annual Powwow or stay up to date with the Office of Indigenous Initiatives.

The post McGill’s 25th Annual Powwow appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Content warning: death, violence

September 13 marks twenty years since the 2006 shooting at the Dawson College CEGEP, where one student was killed and 19 others were injured. Two decades later, families and survivors are citing the anniversary to argue that Canada’s legal approach to gun control remains unresolved.

In an open letter, families of survivors and victims called upon the federal government to act on three commitments: completing the ban and removing assault-style firearms, closing the large- capacity magazine loopholes, and strengthening the oversight of handgun exemptions. Their demands ensued decades after major shootings in Quebec triggered debates over firearm regulations. Debates that have been reignited by thousands demonstrating against federal firearm restrictions in Quebec City earlier this year.

The gun control debate precedes the Dawson tragedy. A debate that came to the forefront nationally after the 1989 École Polytechnique massacre where 14 women were killed in a misogynist attack. In its aftermath, the Coalition for Gun Control was formed. In 1995, the federal government adopted Bill C-68 which established the Firearms Act and expanded requirements surrounding licensing and registration.

By the time the Dawson shooting took place eleven years later, Canada already had a significantly broader federal firearm regulation. However, the attack renewed questions about what kinds of firearms could legally circulate in the country and whether further restrictions were necessary.

In 2023, the federal government made the handgun freeze permanent. Under the measure, new handgun registration certificates cannot be issued to individuals. This prevents most new purchases, sales, and transfers, while allowing people who previously owned handguns to retain them. The legislation also expanded the Criminal Code’s definition of prohibited firearms and introduced additional measures related to illegally manufactured firearms and licences in cases involving domestic violence.

Quebec also maintains firearm regulations of its own. Since 2018, the province has operated the Quebec Firearms Registration Service (SIAF). Most firearm owners in Quebec are required to register their firearms with the provincial system, in addition to meeting federal licensing requirements. Prohibited and restricted firearms, however, are registered federally rather than through the SIAF. The distinction means that what is often described broadly as “Quebec gun law” is actually a combination of provincial and federal regulations.

One of the largest ongoing disputes concerns assault-style firearms. The Assault-Style Firearms Compensation Program was created to compensate eligible owners who surrender prohibited firearms. Owners who did not participate must dispose of or permanently deactivate affected firearms by October 30 of this year.

For gun control advocates, the removal of these firearms is one of the commitments that remains incomplete. For opponents of the program, however, it has become a symbol of what they view as unfair restrictions on legal firearm owners.

Moreover, this disagreement came into public view on February 28, when several thousand protesters from Quebec and the rest of Canada gathered outside the National Assembly in Quebec City to oppose the federal program. At the demonstration, Sophie Béland, the provincial director of the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights, argued that the program unfairly targets legal firearm owners who are not involved in crime. Other participants described themselves as hunters and sport shooters concerned about losing legally acquired property.

PolySeSouvient, a gun- control advocacy group formed by survivors and families affected by the École Polytechnique massacre, criticized the movement opposing the removal program. The advocacy group argued that the firearms covered by the ban had been prohibited for public safety reasons.

The February protest also raised another question about the shifting discourse of firearm politics in Quebec. Some arguments made around the demonstration emphasized owning firearms for self- defence. This framing is particularly associated with gun politics in the United States, where firearm ownership is constitutionally protected. La Presse investigative journalist, Tristan Péloquin, argued that American political discourse surrounding firearms has increasingly influenced Canadian gun owners, particularly on the idea of possessing firearms for personal protection. This does not necessarily mean that Quebec’s gun regulations are becoming comparable to that of the United States; however, the language used to defend gun ownership in Quebec may be starting to change.

Twenty years after Dawson, the anniversary arrives in the middle of an ongoing debate. This debate that has shifted as Canada and Quebec have introduced layers of firearm regulation that did not exist at the time of earlier mass shootings, while the federal government continues to determine how some of the newest restrictions will be implemented.

For the families and survivors of the Dawson College shooting, September 13 is not only a day of remembrance but also a time to make distinctions between the passing of legislation and its implementations. This renewed distinction places the question facing governments in the present, twenty years later: not only regarding how much gun control policy has changed since 2006, but how much of it remains unresolved.

The post Two Decades After the Tragedy appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Jahn recently published an opinion piece in The Globe and Mail, entitled: “Universities should stop treating AI as a cheating problem.” She cites a 2026 study from the Higher Education Policy Institute at Oxford, which found that 94 per cent of UK undergraduate students use generative AI to aid with school work. Moreover, KPMG Canada found last fall that 73 per cent of students in Canada now rely on generative AI for schoolwork, an increase from 52 per cent two years ago. Of the Canadian students surveyed by KPMG, 45 per cent say their first instinct is to use AI when drafting written assignments, a practice of which 48 per cent attribute to the decline in their critical thinking skills.

Academic institutions have begun providing widespread access to specific generative AI models, which Jahn described as a more coordinated approach. For example, McGill’s Max Bell School of Public Policy provides all students and faculty with access to Claude Pro. However, as Jahn wrote in her article, “[Claude Pro] is a subscription and a training program. It is not a rethink of what a degree is for.” Moreover, certain Canadian professors, for example Jonathan Malloy (Carleton) and Daniel Silver (UofT), have partially opted for assignments that require and engage with AI. Malloy and Silver have similar approaches, essentially having students use AI to produce papers or assignments and then analyze AI’s response.

When asked if she had noticed the impacts of AI on syllabi this year, Jahn acknowledged McGill’s more proactive approach this fall. However, she also stressed the absence of an up-to-date, consistent AI policy across McGill and other post- secondary institutions. Additionally, she noted a move away from take-home papers and a pivot towards in-class assessments. This is echoed in a key piece of feedback from the Max Bell Center’s cohort last year: students need to monitor their use of AI.

This summer, the Max Bell School administration, including but not limited to Director Jennifer Welsh and Associate Director Manuel Balán, presented their faculty with a framework for professors to use when drafting AI policies in syllabi. The framework provided faculty with concrete categories and language, so that these policies (no matter the professors’ individual stances on AI) can all be slightly more cohesive.

Jahn breaks down AI regulation into three possibilities. Option one is an AI-free environment with measures like in-class evaluations and digital locking softwares. Option two is a hybrid model in which students aren’t technically allowed to use AI but have no parameters in place unlike the digital locking software in option one. The school is looking to avoid his as the model as this is what Jahn describes as the “least effective.” Option three is freedom for students to use AI. What is essential is not mixing the models, but using them in tandem, as, according to The Globe and Mail, “the mass lecture model has been failing students long before ChatGPT arrived.” Though this is a newly mplemented framework, the results of which we have yet to see at the Max Bell Center, Jahn notes that professors have greatly appreciated the guidance and structure provided by the Centre thus far. When asked about different approaches to AI use across McGill’s faculties and programs, Jahn emphasized how each program has a distinct disciplinary culture and, therefore, fundamentally different modes of evaluation, with some more challenged by AI than others. The Faculty of Arts in particular, with their heavy reliance on the take-home essay, has been targeted; however, not all arts classes are equally affected because there is no unified approach to regulating AI use. When asked about this, Jahn’s response was clear: “This is ultimately where universities and professors need to step in and clarify the rules.”

Moreover, Jahn was able to tell us more about an AI policy initiative specifically highlighting Canadian students’ voices. This past spring, the Centre for Media Technology and Democracy gave voice to young Canadians on AI policy at Gen(Z)AI: Canada’s Youth Assembly on Artificial Intelligence. Over eight months, thousands of youth crafted policy recommendations concerning AI regulations in Canada and presented them in parliament. I asked Jahn what surprised her most about the responses from post-secondary participants of Gen(Z)AI. Without hesitation, she described the manner in which post-secondary Gen Z students balance hope with realism, as seen in Gen(Z)AI’s role as “the democratic voice of [a generation that has] the most to gain or lose, speaking clearly and in their own name.” According to Jahn, Gen Z cannot afford to not think about AI in the same way other generations do.

Ultimately, what Jahn drove home most was that higher-level administration needs to be specific about the main skills they’re trying to instill in their students. “The fundamental question AI is pushing on us is ‘what are the real skills and learning outcomes we are working towards and how do we…[allow] our students to explore them?’” For Jahn and McGill faculty, exploring looks like moving toward AI-safe examinations. However, this elicits another question of how students can explore newly acquired knowledge if not through cognitive exercise, research, and the process of writing. Jahn has emphasized both in her article and speaking with the Daily the necessity for McGill to formulate a comprehensive AI policy. As we begin to see the impacts of AI usage on Canadian post-secondary students and their syllabi, the Max Bell School of Public Policy has been taking initiative, creating a framework for professors to tackle the troubling waters of AI use.

The post AI and the ‘Syllabus Effect’ appeared first on The McGill Daily.

As the city prepares for the UCI Grand Prix Cycliste and Road World Championships, ongoing street closures are raising concerns among locals, businesses, and individuals with reduced mobility. The Grand Prix Cycliste is a competition between commercial world and pro teams whereas the Road World Championships is a competition between national teams. These cycling events are among the most internationally prestigious, bringing the best cyclists to the streets of Montreal to compete for international recognition. 

Road closures began on September 5 in preparation for the Grand Prix Cycliste, which occurred on September 13. With the Road World Championships occurring from September 20 to 27, accessibility barriers and mobility challenges have become a topic of discussion. 

The road closures for the Road World Championships will affect 36 kilometres of Montreal streets, including major pedestrian pathways, and will last until October 4. According to the Ville de Montreal website, roads near McGill will face closures, either until October 4 or on select race days. These roads include Avenue du Mont Royal Est, Avenue du Parc, Rue Saint-Urbain, Avenue du Docteur-Penfield, and Boulevard Saint-Laurent. Moreover, students living near the Berri- UQAM metro station will experience closures on roads such as Rue Sainte-Catherine Est and Rue Berri. Those who frequent Parc Mont Royal should also prepare for closures on parts of Chemin Olmsted and Chemin Remembrance. 

On Sunday, I briefly watched the UCI Grand Prix Cycliste from the Plateau and had the opportunity to see many excited Montrealers doing the same. That being said, those with reduced mobility remain concerned about transit access. The CBC reports that during a recent meeting between Ville- Marie borough council officials, wheelchair user France Martin brought up concerns surrounding the inaccessibility of the STM’s paratransit due to the closures. According to CTV News, accessibility advocates have argued that these closures will also affect people’s access to medication, groceries, and homecare. CTV spoke with Steven Laperrière, executive director of Regroupement des activistes pour l’inclusion au Québec (RAPLIQ), an organization which advocates for Quebecois people with disabilities. Laperrière stated that because of the month-long duration of the closures, accessibility barriers are “very complicated.” He argues that the effects of these closures could be detrimental, calling for greater effort from the city to reduce barriers. 

In addition to transit barriers, there are multiple pedestrian bridges where people must climb flights of stairs in order to cross. This includes the bridge at the intersection of Avenue du Parc and Avenue des Pins Ouest. As a result, those in wheelchairs or with mobility challenges can only cross the course with on-site assistance at designated times. This challenge may require significant planning and flexibility from people with disabilities. 

On top of these accessibility concerns, there is a growing conversation among local business owners on how to adapt to the challenge of reduced access for their consumers. CTV reports that businesses on Avenue du Parc have expressed concerns of closures deterring suppliers from reaching their businesses. That being said, some businesses are looking forward to the expected increase in foot traffic from championship watchers. 

The road closures are also sure to obstruct recreational running and cycling routes near McGill and in other parts of Montreal. With the closure of parts of Chemin Olmstead near Avenue du Parc, students will have to find different points of entry to access Parc Mont Royal. One alternative entry is at the top of Rue University near the Upper Residence dorms. Moreover, those who run or cycle near Parc Jean-Drapeau may experience inconveniences as roads such as Circuit Gilles-Villeneuve and Pont de la Concorde will also experience closures from September 19 to 21. The city has established multiple measures to respond to accessibility concerns. According to the CBC, Mayor Soraya Martinez Ferrada stated that “Accessibility for people who rely on services like paratransit is indeed going to be a major issue during these championships because — let’s be honest — it’s going to be a nightmare.” Consequently, the city and event coordinators have agreed that the STM will be permitted through blocked areas to ensure paratransit access. Urgences-santé spokesperson, Geneviève Poirier, told CTV News that there will be “two dedicated ambulance crews, as well as paramedics on bicycles.” 

Bixi has also announced an expansion of bike access to improve mobility around the city. According to the CBC, from September 13 to 27, the maximum duration of rides for monthly Bixi subscribers will increase from 45 minutes to one hour. There will also be a total of 120 stations within 500 metres of racing routes. In addition, the Bixi team plans to adapt their services, by either adding additional bikes or ensuring space at docking stations, to create alternative means of transport in response to the increase in traffic and road closures. Bixi has also created daily maps which show the bike stations and race routes, which are accessible at their website. 

Despite the city’s modifications, students, commuters, and people with disabilities are sure to confront challenges to their daily routines. As race routes change daily, closures remain somewhat inconsistent. In order to stay up to date, monitor the 2026 UCI Road World Championships interactive map on the Ville de Montreal website. It details daily road closures, including changes to local-traffic-only roads and pedestrian crossings from September 19 to 27. Commuter students should also plan their routes on the STM website, which has a detailed travel guide, outlining the disruptions and modifications to regular transit routes. Students should also make use of apps such as Transit or Chrono as these will display live transit schedules and delays due to the Road World Championships. 

While accessibility remains an ongoing concern, the Road World Championships are also an opportunity for McGill students to attend a world-class sporting event for free. The official Fan Village located in Parc Jeanne-Mance is only a short walk from McGill campus. Moreover, all the races have the same finish line on Avenue du Parc. While students can observe the races along race routes, they can also watch the races on giant screens, participate in contests, and buy food and drinks in the Fan Village. These Fan Village perks and race schedules can further be monitored on the UCI Road World Championships website.

The post The UCI Road World Championships: Where Excitement Meets Inconvenience appeared first on The McGill Daily.

This year, students are mobilizing again. A petition outlining a motion drafted by McGill student Summayya Kheireddine has been circulating online in student networks. The motion calls on SSMU Senators to advocate for McGill’s exchange program with the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (HUJI) to be “neither renewed nor reinstated.” The petition needs 500 signatures for the motion to be presented at an SSMU General Assembly. Kheireddine told the Daily that “The timeline [to draft the petition] is tight. First, you have to decide what to focus the petition or motion on — this took months of Access to Information (ATI) requests, with considerable delay on McGill’s end. Then you have to write the motion itself, making sure it’s well-researched and substantively founded. Once it’s ready, you submit it to SSMU, where it undergoes further scrutiny to ensure it complies with their governance structures and the law…Once your motion is added to the agenda and SSMU handles its internal process, you start convincing people to actually attend the General Assembly and vote yes. ”

One student organizer told the Daily, “Academic exchange programs with Israeli institutions are designed to give students a curated, positive experience of Israel, whitewashing its occupation and denial of Palestinian rights. HUJI is not just a passive party to this whitewashing: it is deeply entangled with the Israeli military and actively supplies the Israeli Occupation Forces (“IOF”) with material support.” Since 2019, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has offered the Havatzalot Program, an exclusive three-year double bachelor’s degree with the Israeli Defence Forces to train students to acquire roles in the Israeli Military Directorate. The program has students choose a first major in either Islamic Studies or Middle Eastern studies, and a second in mathematics, economics, philosophy, or computer science. According to The Jerusalem Post, the program additionally offers “basic combat training, officer training, and training in military intelligence and leadership.”

In 2010, McGill strengthened ties with the university to promote future “collaboration and exchange.” McGill and HUJI have since offered an exchange program between the universities for undergraduate and graduate students wishing to study abroad. According to the motion, the universities signed their most recent agreement in 2023, and it is set to expire in 2028. The motion also states that the universities are required to negotiate renewal terms nine months prior to the expiry of the current agreement, which would be by late 2027.

While the exchange program fact sheet for the 2026-2027 exchange year is available on the McGill Abroad website, the page notes that “Travel to Israel is currently not permitted as the region is a Level 3: Avoid non-essential travel on Canada’s Travel Advisories. As per McGill’s policy, students are not allowed to travel to Level 3 and 4 destinations.” The Daily has reached out to the student coordination advisor for clarification on the current status of the program yet has received no response at the time of writing.

This recent petition mirrors the McGill’s Association of University Teachers (MAUT) endorsement of an academic boycott of Israeli institutions signed last October. A statement from the University senate following this resolution stated that, “As indicated, the resolution does not constitute an official University position. It does not affect McGill’s policies. The University is not reconsidering its existing partnerships with any institutions at home or abroad.” While Kheireddine told the Daily that the current student motion is not connected to the MAUT’s boycott, “both efforts draw inspiration from the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI), initiated [by Palestinian academics in the West Bank] in 2004 to contribute to the struggle for Palestinian freedom, justice, and equality.”

Kheireddine calls upon McGill students to participate in the petition and pending motion as well as hold the university accountable for their complicity. “[Our] privilege comes with a responsibility to our fellow students: to uphold and defend the right to academic freedom, particularly when that right is being systematically denied elsewhere. When an institution maintains ties with a university implicated in genocide, operating in part on illegally occupied land, and closely tied to the IOF, that relationship becomes part of a broader question of academic freedom and institutional complicity. As students, we aren’t separate from our institutions, and we aren’t separate from our responsibility to question and challenge the relationships they maintain.”

Editor’s Note: The print version of this article states that “the universities signed their most recent agreement in 2017 …” While the initial agreement was signed in 2017, the date of the most renewal was 2023. This is the correct version.

The post McGill Students Demand an Academic Boycott of Israeli Institution Partnership appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Good People is an article series highlighting McGill students doing community-oriented work on and around campus. Because it’s important to celebrate good people doing good things.

The World University Service of Canada’s Student Refugee Program is a unique initiative that combines refugee resettlement with access to higher education. Founded in the 1920s, World University Service of Canada (WUSC) is a Canadian non-profit organization dedicated to improving educational, employment, and empowerment opportunities for young people globally.

The organization’s Student Refugee Program (SRP) is a student-led sponsorship program that supports refugee students at Canadian universities.

The Daily spoke with Mohammad Alnatour about WUSC’s McGill committee. A Syrian refugee living in Lebanon, Alantour arrived in Canada in August 2022 through the SRP, when he started his undergraduate degree in anatomy and cell biology at McGill. One year later, he became an executive member of WUSC’s McGill committee before leading the group as Co-Chair the following year. Now in an advisory role, Alnatour will start his master’s degree at McGill’s Integrated Program in Neuroscience in January 2027.

We spoke about Alnatour’s involvement with WUSC, the importance of community for refugee students, and why he believes in doing hard things if it means getting to change someone’s life for the better.

This interview has been edited for clarity and conciseness.

Enid Kohler for The McGill Daily (MD): How did you first get involved with WUSC? What drew you to the organization?

Mohammad Alnatour (MA): The Student Refugee Program, one of WUSC’s pillar programs, sponsors refugee students who were unable to continue their studies at home to come study here in Canada. It gives them an opportunity for a brand new life as immigrants here in Canada.

I was a student of the SRP. Before coming here, I was a Syrian refugee in Lebanon. I heard of the program and I applied. I got rejected the first year, and then I got accepted, thankfully, the next year. I was eventually placed at McGill.

MD: I’m curious, what was it like to be part of WUSC upon arriving at McGill? What were your initial impressions of the organization?

MA: Well, for me, I was one of [WUSC’s] beneficiaries at the beginning. It’s a life-changing experience, not just for the person who benefits [from the program], but also for the people around it. During my first year at McGill, I felt I was given so much support that I felt obliged to give back. And this is why I got involved first as a VP Internal, and in the following year, I became the Co- Chair. Right now, I’m in more of an advisory position to advise the new team on how to approach and navigate future plans.

MD: In a nutshell, what kind of activities and events does your organization run?

MA: Our biggest program is the SRP. The program has sponsored over 50 students, with more than 35 of them being active students on campus right now.

The SRP still is our main program. But in the past few years, we realized we needed to do more on campus to engage with the student body, because the program entirely relies on student involvement.

That’s when we started doing more activities, whether that be social activities to foster a feeling of community for the students that we bring here to study at McGill, or advocacy events to highlight the refugee crisis around the world. We’ve also decided to expand the scope of our audience to offer opportunities for students or scholars at risk in general. We have other programs running right now under the committee, like a winter drive through which students can donate winter clothing for students at risk. We also started a French learning program for newcomer students that would like to integrate better into the community.

MD: Either as a WUSC scholar or as an executive member, what has been a highlight of your experience working with the organization?

MA: After coming here and realizing that I would not see my family and loved ones for quite some time while I was studying in Canada, you know, that hits hard. After a couple of weeks, the homesickness really starts to kick in.

But then at the beginning of the semester, WUSC held one of its very special events, very close and dear to my heart, which is simply a fall picnic that we do at the beginning of the semester.

During that picnic, I really felt a sense of belonging and I felt that there was a community for me here, that there was a family for me that would support me during my studies and in my new life. It really started to feel like home, finally.

MD: The theme of this column is “good people doing good things.” In the context of your work with WUSC, what does being a “good person” mean to you?

MA: During the SSMU referendum period last year, when we had to campaign to renew the student levy which is our main way of funding the SRP, I would constantly call my parents and tell them how stressful this was. Some nights, I would barely even sleep because peope’s lives would have literally been at risk had this not gone through.

My dad used to always ask, ‘You’re a pre-med student, you already have a lot on your plate. Why do you keep giving this much time and energy to this?’ And I always told him that I was given this chance, and without it, I wouldn’t have been here.

Now, I have the chance to contribute that back to someone else’s life. This is what being a good person feels [like] to me, that even when you are not tasked or asked to do something, if you feel that you can do something that will change someone else’s life, I believe that you should do it.

And this is what I’ve done. Successfully running the referendum means about 18 extra students over the next five years can be sponsored, and 18 extra students mean 18 extra lives that are changed.

Learn more about WUSC McGill and opportunities to get involved on Instagram, @wuscmcgill, through their website, wusc.ssmu.ca, or email wusc.mcgill@ssmu.ca.

If you know good people doing good things who you would like to see featured in this column, email news@mcgilldaily.com.

The post “A Life-Changing Experience”: Student-Led Organization Welcomes Refugee Students to McGil appeared first on The McGill Daily.

As Premier, Fréchette had the opportunity to act in one legislative session before the upcoming election, likely the last session with a CAQ majority until the following election. During this time, CAQ administration attempted to pass 27 bills. The Fréchette government’s first bill was particularly symbolic: an early renewal of the notwithstanding clause protecting the controversial Bill 96/Law 14, which consolidated the role of the French language in public, professional, and academic life by strengthening Bill 101. The Fréchette administration further expanded Bill 101 for vocational and adult education as well as changes to the application process for low-cost housing, with specific provisions regarding students. With limited time, these were abandoned. Still, a ban on selling energy drinks to youth under 16, the regulation of ticket resales and subscriptions, the Gabie Renaud law (granting individuals the ability to inquire about a potential partner’s domestic abuse history), and nine others were passed.

While Fréchette initially championed bills concerning language, they seem to have lost steam in the national assembly as they neared the session deadline. Due to the need for the opposition’s consent to further major legal projects, the CAQ government instead focused on achieving “results without drama.” This meant focusing on bills that wouldn’t get stuck in debate or in committee before the session ended. This also created distance between Fréchette and the famously confrontational Legault. She further distanced herself by criticizing Legault’s “economic interventionism,” referring to the auditor general’s report published on June 10. Despite the deliberate change in “tone,” Fréchette still sees Legault’s policies on the French Language and Quebec Culture as successful and intends to continue in that direction. On the abandoned Bill 101 expansion, she stated, “I understand that if we bring back this bill and we will, should we be reelected, we can modify the process to consult the English community.”

In the same interview on June 15, the only formal English language interview with Fréchette since becoming Premier, she praised McGill and Concordia as “important, world-class institutions.” A day later, on June 16, Fréchette’s higher education minister, Martine Biron, announced a deal with McGill, Concordia, and Bishop’s offering $20 million a year as long as 60 per cent of out-of-province students reach level 4 proficiency in oral French. In addition, these schools will have to pay fines if they fail to reach the quota. This does not change the tuition hike, which remains in effect despite the Quebec Superior Court deeming that the near doubling of fees for out-of-province students is “unreasonable.” As the former Minister of Immigration, Francization and Integration, this does not only represent a continuation of her predecessor’s policies, but of her own.

Recent polling by Leger shows that language is not among the highest priorities for most anglophone and francophone voters in Quebec, with the cost of living and quality of health services ranking as higher priority issues. That said, 12 per cent of voters still view Quebec’s language and culture as one of their highest priorities, while 24 per cent of anglophones who intend to move out in the next two years cite language in some form as the main reason. Anglophones also clearly diverge in their voting intentions as well, with 55 per cent support for the Quebec Liberal Party (PLQ) and 20 per cent for the Conservative Party of Quebec (PCQ). By contrast, the general Quebec population sees 24 per cent and 13 per cent respectively, with the separatist Parti Québécois (PQ) leading at 30 per cent support and the CAQ competing for second with 20 per cent.

There is no scheduled English language debate between the party leaders as the CAQ and the PQ declined their invitations, and the PLQ will not participate in debates without the other four parties. The last English-language debate in Quebec’s provincial history occurred in 2018, with the only other one occurring back in 1985. The “Dialogue jeunesse des chef·fes” planned by the Institute du Nouveau Monde (INM), an event scheduled for August 25th meant to allow youth to directly ask questions to party leaders, yet it was also cancelled. This raises questions about whether young anglophone Quebecers are being adequately included in conversations about the province’s future.

For Quebecers, and particularly for students at McGill, these debates are about more than abstract questions of language policy or provincial politics. They shape who can study in Quebec, how accessible its universities are, and whether young people see a future for themselves here. For McGill students, the effects are especially tangible. The provincial government can directly affect their education and their decision to remain in Quebec after graduation. Regardless of how one feels about the CAQ’s approach, these policies matter because they will help determine who feels they have a place in Quebec’s future.

The post Premier Christine Fréchette on Language appeared first on The McGill Daily.

This interview has been edited for clarity and conciseness. 

The McGill Daily (MD): After graduating from McGill and entering the workforce, you didn’t originally anticipate becoming a journalist. In what ways did your education at McGill and prior experience in economic research prepare you to become a journalist?

Luca Léry Moffat (LLM): To maybe give you a bit of background, in my third or fourth year, I got really into economics. I was doing a different major, did ECON 416 that was about topics in economic development, and sort of fell in love with it and decided to switch to the honours program. By the end of my third year, going into my fourth year, I was pretty set on applying for economic research. As I said in the lecture, I applied to a bunch of different pre-docs; most of which were very academic. 

Then, of course, I went on to get this job at a think tank. It was a kind of pre-doc as a research analyst, but it was at a think tank, so [it was] less academically focused. Policy is a bit different from academia. It’s more about being a messenger between academia and policymakers. So, as an economist, I was reading lots of academic stuff, policy papers, and then trying to communicate it clearly to another audience. 

I think it was actually during my first job when I picked up a lot of the skills that I needed in journalism: the ability to read a lot, synthesize that information, spin a story, figure out what the most important story is, and what the key messages you want to get across are. Something else I got from my first job was a network. So, I started building a network in Brussels, and those people have become invaluable in [my] pivoting to journalism because being a journalist is basically knowing lots of people and getting them to tell you stuff. I mean, that’s literally all it is – anyone could do it. 

I would say that one thing that I got from McGill in the economics program was the ability to use data. I think that has given me a real edge in my journalistic career because not many people can make a graph. Data visualization is something which journalism is really shifting towards. People don’t have [long] attention spans anymore, so we like to see pretty graphs and pictures while scrolling through these interactive articles. The ability to code and knowing how to use an Excel spreadsheet was very attractive to prospective employers. I’d say that’s something I got from McGill which really helped me. 

MD: You mentioned that you were also a graduate of POLI 331. With regards to knowledge concerning Ukraine, Russia, and their histories, what piqued your interest in Eastern European affairs during your undergraduate degree or even when working in economic research? 

LLM: I was talking to Professor Popova about this – I loved my time at McGill. I had amazing professors, learned so much, and got a really good quality of education. Having said that, I feel as though I was taught economics and Russian both quite badly. I don’t think that’s McGill’s fault, I think that’s just education in the West. 

On the economic side, you learn all of this economic theory which comes from the 1970s and 80s. But you don’t really look at finance at all even though finance has, over the last 40-50 years, become such a crucial part of the economic system. International financial flows have real ramifications for the economy, whereas that’s not integrated into a lot of the economic models that we study. On the Russian side, we were studying all of this literature without looking at it through the lens of colonialism. I think in the West, the idea that Russia is an empire is sort of a bit of an odd one when you’re first confronted with it. But actually, it’s one of the last standing empires from this massive period of colonialism. The US still exists, but many of the others have kind of disintegrated, or are now a shell of their former selves. I would study Russian literature and I remember studying, for example, A Hero of Our Time by [Mikhail] Lermontov, and at no point did I stop to consider, “Why is there this Russian guy in the Caucasus? What is he doing there?” Well, of course, it was part of this expansion of the Russian Empire. So, that’s just something which I’ve sort of reflected on since leaving McGill. 

In terms of what piques my interest in Eastern European affairs, I think it was classes like POLI 331 or HIST 226, which were about the Balkans, Greece, and Turkey throughout the 20th century. What I found so interesting about it was how it’s really complicated – borders changed all the time throughout the 20th century, and people moved. After World War I, borders moved and people stayed where they were. After World War II, borders pretty much stayed where they were and people moved. There’s so much packed into European history, which is really difficult to unearth because it’s complicated. The Russian, poli-sci, and history classes I took at McGill started to shed a light on that, or even just scratched the surface of those really complicated events. And it left me hungry for more. 

MD: During the Zoom call, you mentioned that you often feel conflicted as the journalistic field often emphasizes objectivity and neutrality, while the reporting you do and the publication you work for are staunchly supportive of Ukraine’s sovereignty. How do you navigate this conflict and adhere to journalistic integrity while fighting for a cause you feel so strongly about?

LLM: I find no trouble navigating it whatsoever because I think many things can be true at the same time. I’m staunchly supportive of Ukraine. I believe the facts clearly show that Ukraine is in a war for its own existence, that this is a war for two competing visions of society: one is dictatorship, and one is democracy and liberal values, and I am more partial to the latter. 

At the same time, I believe that Ukraine has a lot of work to do when it comes to implementing certain reforms. Some articles I’ve written have been sharply critical of the government. In other articles, I have been less critical or even praised the government. I’m not writing op-eds. I’m a reporter, so I’m interviewing people, I’m putting in their quotes, and I’m telling the story. I [will] always try to tell a story that I believe is factually accurate and where I’ve quoted people in the way that they would want to be quoted. 

At the end of the day, Ukraine is fighting for a future where it’s a democracy and it has its own sovereignty. Freedom of the press is a key tenet of a democratic, rules-based, sovereign state. So I think as a reporter, it makes complete sense that I’m writing articles which [can be] more critical of the government.

MD: To my knowledge, you are proficient in Russian and currently learning Ukrainian. What has the process of learning the Ukrainian language been like for you, and what is it like to report for a primarily English-language newspaper when English is not the official language of Ukraine?

LLM: First of all, learning Russian [at McGill] was amazing because I had incredible professors. I have to shout out Maria Ivanova, I think she’s still there, as well as Daniel Pratt, and a few others. Having had a series of other language teachers since who weren’t so good, it made me appreciate how incredible [my McGill ones] were. At McGill, the quality of education in the Russian department was really phenomenal. I’m really nostalgic about it. 

The process of learning Ukrainian started when I arrived here on the 17th of April, exactly 11 months ago. When I first arrived, I figured that my Russian would be reasonably helpful, even though I understood that people were speaking less Russian nowadays because they’re being invaded by Russia and also wanting to put [the] Ukrainian [language] into the limelight. Kyiv used to be a very Russian-speaking city up until the full-scale invasion in 2022, but has [now] massively pivoted to Ukrainian. You still hear Russian around quite a lot, but out of respect I wanted to learn Ukrainian. For me, it was very clear that a lot of people didn’t want to be spoken to in Russian. As a way of just being respectful, I wanted to learn Ukrainian. 

What I think the most crucial element of learning any language is completely immersing yourself. It’s been very humbling because learning a language from scratch is not easy. Ukrainian is a very difficult language. It’s massively helped me to have such a good quality of education at McGill on the Russian side of things because they’re both Slavic languages. Even though they’re very different, lots of the grammar is the same, [and] lots of the endings are sort of similar. Not having to start from scratch on the grammar side has been really helpful. 

MD: How have you perceived reporting from journalists in Ukraine on the Russo-Ukrainian war to be different from reporting published by Western media? 

LLM: I’m thinking of a time when I went back to the UK last summer, and we had a big gathering [with] a bunch of McGill alumni. I brought back a bunch of caps with the Ukrainian flag on them to give to some friends. Someone said, “Oh, you’re the one who’s working as a journalist in Ukraine,” and made a joke about not being neutral [in the war] because of my friends who had these caps on. I think there is a desire amongst some reporters, and a desire in the public rhetoric of the West, to believe that this war is political and that you can be neutral in it. 

What was always clear to me but really crystallized when I arrived in Ukraine was that this war is happening because of Russia’s intent to erase Ukrainian statehood, erase the Ukrainian language, and to absorb Ukraine as part of Russia. Putin has some really peculiar historical fantasies which all mainstream historians reject entirely: that Ukraine isn’t a real place and that it’s the Bolsheviks’ fault that Ukraine exists. The reality is that Ukraine is a real place. It has people who really care about their country, [and] demonstrably so because there are 900,000 people in the army. There are hundreds of thousands who have been injured or have died defending their country. There are so many Ukrainian civil society activists who care about their language. You see Ukrainian flags everywhere. People have backpacks with Ukrainian ribbons. 

Ukrainian society is complicated. There are lots of different perspectives within the country. But I’m actually rather impressed by the homogeneity in supporting Ukraine, Land] not wanting [it| to be part of Russia, especially in a country that has a long history of entanglement with Russia. Given everything that I’ve just said, it’s pretty easy to define this war as a genocidal war because it is an attempt to erase a nation. And that is the definition of genocide. 

In the Western media, this is not always made explicit. I think it should be made explicit. This is essentially an anachronistic empire. If you know anything about history, you can see this [repeating]. I mean, it rings throughout the ages. If you look at recent history, you can see Georgia in 2008, which Russia invaded. You can see Crimea in 2014. You can see interference in Ukrainian elections in 2004 [and] 2005 (the Orange Revolution). 

Western media sometimes doesn’t always do a good job of portraying that. But for me, those are the facts and a journalist’s job is to report the facts. And it’s very difficult for me to see it from any other perspective. I love hearing other people’s views, even if I find them abhorrent sometimes. I really enjoy trying to understand where people come from. For me, it’s so clear that the facts are [that] this is an imperialistic, genocidal war.

The post Reporting in a Warzone appeared first on The McGill Daily.

In 2026, Deloitte predicts that women will make up less than 30 per cent of the global technology workforce, given that they are consistently underrepresented in academic programs in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). What is more, women make up only 25 per cent of tech positions on a global scale, as reported by Forbes and the National Center for Women and Information Technology. 

Girls Who Code confronts gender disparity in STEM by making the field inclusive and accessible for women and gender-diverse people. With an eye towards breaking gender barriers, the organization offers computer science lessons and mentorship for elementary and high school students across Montreal. It also runs hackathons for university students, networking events, and workshops. 

The Daily spoke with Girls Who Code executives Jenna Cacchione and Virginia Ceccatelli, U3 students studying Computer Science and Economics at McGill. We talked about the creative side to coding, imposter syndrome, and why young girls and gender-diverse students belong in the computer science field.

This interview has been edited for clarity and conciseness.

Enid Kohler for The McGill Daily (MD): How did you get involved in Girls Who Code, and why? 

Virginia Ceccatelli (VC): I was never really exposed to coding in high school. It wasn’t really a subject that was taught, and I always thought it was scary as a field and very masculine. When I started my studies in International Relations in university, I got a bit of exposure to Python and R and had so much fun with it, so I transferred into Computer Science. I want to give girls the opportunity to get into coding and see that it’s a creative process as well. 

Jenna Cacchione (JC): Similar to Virginia, I did my first year in [another program, Economics,] and then I switched into Computer Science. My high school didn’t have anything computer related…Had I had a program like this, maybe I would have switched into CS a little bit earlier. I really just wanted to give back [by giving] other girls that same opportunity. 

VC: CS really is like learning a language. Like any language, the more you speak it and the earlier you’re exposed to it, it’s so much easier to pick it up. 

MD: That’s a really good comparison. For those who aren’t familiar with your organization, can you pitch Girls Who Code in a few sentences? 

VC: [Girls Who Code] a way to make coding fun and creative, and to change the narrative that [coding] is anything relegated to the masculine sphere. We give back to young girls [by seeing] them learn every week. It’s really rewarding.

JC: [Coding] can be really daunting. Sometimes I look at my computer screen and I’m like, ‘oh my God, what am I even doing?’ For younger girls especially, it can be super intimidating, especially since it’s a male-dominated field. I hope our facilitators can act as big sisters to our students. 

MD: Why is it important that young girls and gender-diverse students have access to program like Girls Who Code? 

VC: In general, the CS field is massively male-dominated. Most role models in the industry are guys. So for us, it’s really to show girls that they can do it; it’s not that hard. For guys, this message is something they might have been told growing up, and for girls, it’s not necessarily the narrative. 

MD: You mentioned that the Computer Science space is predominantly male-dominated. In your own professional and/or academic experiences, what kind of patterns have you observed in terms of female representation and inclusivity? 

VC: I’m not working in the field yet, but through research projects, I’ve found that you have to prove yourself more. If you’re in a room that has seven guys and two girls, the two girls have to prove that they know what they’re talking about, that they can actually do everything that everyone else can. I feel like there’s this constant voice that’s second guessing my abilities as a girl coder. 

JC: I have to agree. I also find imposter syndrome is very much there. Exactly what you said, if you’re sitting at a table with a bunch of men, and you’re the only two girls, I sometimes feel like, ‘I don’t belong here.’It’s a mental challenge. Like, ‘no, I’ve put in the work. I do belong here. 

MD: On that note, what do you hope students will take away from the program beyond practical coding skills? 

JC: I hope that students realize that it’s okay to ask for help. Sometimes you do need guidance. I had tons of [it], and I was very lucky to have had mentors who were part of Girls Who Code. I hope that [these girls are] able to ask for help and possibly find a mentor later on in their academic career. 

MD: Do you have a favorite memory of your work with Girls Who Code? 

VC: In my year of being a facilitator for Girls Who Code, I taught at the same high school and a lot of the girls stayed the entire year. In the beginning, they were shy about asking questions, but it was really nice to see them gradually gain so much confidence. 

JC: I like the fact that our whole executive team is going through the same thing: we’re all looking for internships, we’re all studying pretty much the same classes. It’s nice to have that community. 

MD: The theme of this column is “good people doing good things.” In the context of your work with Girls Who Code, what does being a “good person” mean to you?

JC: To me, being a good person means giving back and helping younger girls. Acknowledging that I didn’t have the guidance or knowledge that I do now, and then giving it to the next person. 

VC: Instead of resenting the system and having to stretch myself to catch up to get to where I am now, I can give these girls what I wish I had. Being a good person also means sticking together as girls and by helping girls realize that they can do it if they want to. There’s nothing stopping them. 

Learn more about Girls Who Code and opportunities to get involved on Instagram, @girlswhocodemcgill, or through their website, girlswhocode. ssmu.ca

End note: If you know good people doing good things who you would like to see featured in this column, email news@mcgilldaily.com

The post Rewriting the Code: McGill Students Break Barriers in Computer Science appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Play is critical for children’s physical and mental well-being, but not every child has the same access to recreational athletics and community socialization. Founded in 2000, Right to Play is an international non-profit organization that seeks to protect, educate, and empower children in disadvantaged communities through the power of play. Since its foundation, it has reached millions of children in Africa, Asia, and North America, namely, Canada; with the aim of harnessing play to support youth enduring conflict, disease, and poverty.

Since 2006, students have been the official university representatives of the Right to Play organization at McGill. They volunteer in local Montreal schools to promote inclusive and accessible play, fundraise for the international organization, and run community events like toy and food drives for underprivileged communities in the city. The Daily spoke with Co-President and U3 Biology and Math student Jack Gill about Right to Play. We spoke about his involvement in the club, the importance of play and physical activity, and why curiosity should be encouraged in youth.

This interview has been edited for clarity and conciseness.

Enid Kohler for the McGill Daily (MD): I’m curious about your own involvement with Right to Play. How and why did you get involved?

Jack Gill (JG): I’m on the varsity swim team at McGill, so I’ve been swimming most of my life. We train almost every day, sometimes twice a day. So sports and being active have been a really important part of my life. It’s allowed me to develop a sense of community, make tons of friends, and build my confidence in and out of the water. I wanted to encourage that in other kids. I started volunteering in winter 2025. I worked in a class with students who have learning disabilities and autism, to encourage more inclusive play. It was really fun to build connections with these kids and slowly see throughout the semester how they got more comfortable and open with us.

MD: How would you pitch Right to Play to a first year student at Activities Night?

JG: Right to Play is not just a club we founded here. It’s a broader international organization. Their whole goal is to empower kids through play to overcome adversity, especially less privileged kids. In Canada, the branch focuses more on [BIPOC such as] African communities who might not have … access to [the] resources that we do, as well as Indigenous communities who similarly don’t have the same resources or access. Our chapter takes from that. We have a lot of events where we fundraise in order to support local schools and youth groups, as well as give back to the broader Right to Play organization. We also volunteer in schools to encourage active lifestyles and fun activities.

MD: Why is it important for kids to have play in their lives?

JG: A lot of children we volunteer with don’t necessarily have access to play. For those with learning disabilities, their parents try to protect them a lot and they don’t necessarily let them do the things other children would do. It doesn’t necessarily give them the opportunity to learn and be curious. Being able to encourage that and let them try things and maybe fail and letting them explore is really meaningful to me.

MD: Do you have a favourite memory of your work with Right to Play?

JG: At one of our schools where we volunteer, we go sledding on this little hill in the winter. One of the kids at the beginning wasn’t able to get up on his own. We would encourage him to get up, but we’d end up having to help him. But later, near the end of the semester, he was able to start getting up by himself with all of us cheering around and encouraging him. It was just so nice when he was able to stand up by himself and show [that] he was fully independent. And now he’s able to do that all the time. His parents might have just always helped him and would never have let him learn to do it by himself. That was probably my favourite moment.

MD: What do you hope kids will take away from Right to Play programming into university and beyond?

JG: I think just life skills, like being able to be independent and do things on your own and interact with other people. Also a sense of community as well as teamwork and the idea of an active lifestyle. With this generation we’re kind of leaning away from that with technology, but it’s so important.

MD: The theme of this column is “good people doing good things.” In the context of your work with Right to Play McGill, what does being a “good person” mean to you?

JG: I think what it means to be a good person is to be able to listen to people and kids and let them guide you. One of the big things I like with volunteering is not necessarily forcing kids to do things but guiding them and helping them choose their own path.

To learn more about Right to Play and opportunities to get involved, visit @rtpmcgill on Instagram.

End note: If you know good people doing good things who you would like to see featured in this column, email news@mcgilldaily.com

The post The Power of Play appeared first on The McGill Daily.