McGill students are entering a new era of mobilization marked by mounting legal and institutional restrictions. Quebec’s Bill 89, McGill’s use of injunctions, and the attempted termination of the Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) with the Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU), together point to an increasingly hostile environment for collective action. Yet history shows that when official channels close, students often respond with innovation, developing new tactics that can prove to be even more impactful.
Adopted on May 30, 2025, Quebec’s Bill 89 amends the Labour Code to “give greater consideration to the needs of the population in the event of a strike or a lock-out,” by ensuring the continuation of “services ensuring the well-being of the population.” The Act empowers the government to designate disputes for review by the Administrative Labour Tribunal, which can order that such services be maintained and, if negotiations fail, impose conditions itself. While strikes and lock-outs may continue, they can be suspended in “exceptional circumstances.” According to Evan Fox-Decent, law professor
and president of the Association of McGill Professors of Law, “this legislation represents a frontal attack on workers’ fundamental rights.” For McGill faculty unions, this bill significantly curtails the effectiveness of strikes by limiting the possible leverage of work stoppages and narrowing the scope of legitimate collective action against the administration. This bill also generates a chilling climate of deterrence, where professors, staff, and students, fearing retaliation, may refrain from publicly endorsing or joining mobilizations. Without explicit backing from faculty unions, student strikes lose a crucial source of momentum and legitimacy, weakening student solidarity actions.
In April, the pro-Palestinian student group Students for Palestinian Honour and Resistance (SPHR) organized a three-day demonstration on campus calling for McGill to cut ties with institutions and companies linked to Israel. The university responded by securing an injunction from the Quebec Superior Court judge. The ruling barred protests within five metres of McGill buildings and prohibited activities that could disrupt classes or exams. While directly aimed at weakening SPHR, the injunction sets a broader precedent as the administration can now swiftly resort to the courts to neutralize any disruptive student mobilizations. This fosters a climate of self-censorship, especially since both protesters and “any person aware of the judgment,” even if they aren’t directly related to SPHR, can risk legal consequences. The spatial restrictions also undercut the visibility and effectiveness of protests, discouraging broader participation.
In the aftermath of the April protests, McGill attempted to terminate its contractual relationship with SSMU. The Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) is the formal contract that governs the relationship between McGill University and the Students’ Society of McGill University, outlining the rights, responsibilities, and financial arrangements between the two parties.
It gives SSMU official recognition as the undergraduate student association, allowing it to collect fees, use campus space, and represent students in dealings with the administration. In return, the MoA sets out standards of accountability, compliance with university regulations, and conditions under which the agreement can be reviewed or terminated. McGill can default on the MoA if it determines that SSMU has breached its obligations, such as failing to comply with university policies or legal requirements, since the MoA gives the administration the authority to terminate or suspend the agreement on those grounds.
McGill Interim Deputy Provost Angela Campbell accused the organization’s leadership of not dissociating itself from groups that “endorse or engage in acts of vandalism, intimidation and obstruction as forms of activism.” By moving to terminate this agreement, this threatened to strip SSMU of resources essential for organizing large-scale student movements, including funding, office space, and institutional recognition.
Following a mediation process of several months, McGill and SSMU announced that the MoA will remain in effect, with revisions. The agreement removed certain restrictions on SSMU election eligibility, while also reaffirming limits on protests that involve disruption of academic activities, vandalism, or intimidation. Although this resolution preserved the student union’s legal footing, it underscores how fragile the student unions’ position remains by demonstrating McGill’s willingness to use the threat of institutional withdrawal as leverage. Even with the renewed MoA, the imposed boundaries signal that student mobilization is tolerated only within tightly controlled parameters.
In essence, these developments leave students with fewer institutional resources, greater legal risks, and diminished means of mobilizing, as they have increasingly become
vulnerable to administrative and legal suppression.
Despite these obstacles, history demonstrates that student activism adapts and survives. When direct forms of protest have been suppressed, activists turn to innovative, symbolic ways to continue resisting oppressive systems even when traditional avenues are restricted.
The 2012 Maple Spring was a series of student protests against the proposal to raise university tuition significantly. Throughout this mobilization, protesters faced restrictive legislation, including an emergency law forbidding protests near university grounds and requiring police approval for large public protests (Bill 78), while the municipality of Montreal passed a law prohibiting mask-wearing during any organization or demonstration. In response, the movement devised innovative tactics, such as the “casseroles” actions, nightly balcony protests where citizens banged pots and pans in support of the movement. What began as a creative way to work around restrictions soon spread across the province, illustrating how repressive measures can inadvertently spark innovation.
Furthermore, to ensure no single administrative decision can dissolve student mobilization, a more decentralized and diversified organization strategy is necessary. A constellation of faculty and department-level assemblies, along with alliances beyond campus, can build resilience. When student struggles are tied to a broader community and labour issues, they gain both legitimacy and power. In 2012, opposition to Bill 78 quickly escalated from a tuition protest into a province-wide movement, drawing labor unions, teachers, and even the Quebec Bar Association in protesting for civil rights. Similarly, today, multiple faculty associations at McGill are already challenging Bill 89, citing its violations of constitutional rights by forcing workers to “work against their will, under conditions that are not of their choosing,” as noted by McGill Professor of Sociology Barry Eidlin. By aligning with these efforts, students can position their struggles within a broader fight for democratic liberties and workers’ rights.
History has proven that student mobilization consistently plays a fundamental role in contributing to change. From the fight against South Africa’s apartheid, where McGill notably became the first Canadian university to divest from the National Party’s brutal regime, to more recently, to the Board of Governors’ unanimous decision to divest from fossil fuel companies after a decade of student pressure, students have time and time again demonstrated their ability to push institutions toward greater accountability. These precedents, along with current movements, suggest that while the frameworks for protest may change, mobilization at McGill can continue by embracing decentralization, creativity, and solidarity.