On October 23, Beth Lew-Williams, professor of history and director of the Program in Asian American Studies at Princeton University, won the 2026 prize for her book John Doe Chinaman: A Forgotten History of Chinese Life Under American Racial Law. Lew-Williams’ work was chosen from a pool of almost 400 international submissions, making the eight-book shortlist in September before earning top honours. Jonathan Cheng of The Wall Street Journal and Alexander Lee of The University of Warwick were named as the year’s two finalists.

Also on October 23, before the allocation of the awards, all three writers spoke in the Cundill Forum at McGill’s Thomson House, where the Daily was in attendance. Moderated by McGill History and Classical Studies professor Jeremy Tai, the discussion explored the motivating research questions and resulting discoveries key to the three books in competition. The Forum formed part of the October 22-23 Cundill History Prize Festival, which also featured a lecture by previous winner Lyndal Roper for her book Summer of Fire and Blood: The German Peasants’ War, the student-organized Cundill Fringe, and the awards ceremony.

During the forum, Lew-Williams explained that John Doe Chinaman began with questions about everyday life. After researching anti-Chinese violence and immigration restrictions in the 19th century American West, she realized how much was not known about the specifics of Chinese immigrant life in America. Could they enter a barbershop, for example? Where could they sit in a segregated theatre? These were things she did not know. “I wanted to understand the racial norms, the rules of everyday life,” she explained.

This line of questioning led to a shift in research, moving from her previous focus on American border restrictions faced by Chinese immigrants to studying the laws that governed those who successfully became residents. Combining a review of trial transcripts from the 1850s to the 1920s with digital research, she identified more than 5,000 discriminatory laws. Machine learning helped locate potential legislation, but she personally reviewed approximately 9,000 matches to determine their relevance.

Lew-Williams also turned to trial transcripts containing testimony from Chinese immigrants for research. From this angle, she was able to uncover a more personal side of the story. Despite restrictions on Chinese testimony, Lew-Williams found that some immigrants had managed to leave behind anonymity-defying accounts in the historical record. “When you’re given only fragments, you learn to make the best of them,” she said.

As a part of his discussion moderation, Tai asked the finalists to share the story of someone who stood out in their research. For her part, Lew-Williams introduced Ruby Tsang, a Chinese-American woman who filed a lawsuit in 1916 in order to challenge segregation at a theatre in Reno, Nevada. In response, the theatre threatened to lobby for segregation-permitting legislation, and Tsang subsequently withdrew her case. “[T]his is not a story where she triumphs in the end and desegregates all the theatres in Nevada,” Lew-Williams explained, but in her eyes that makes Tsang’s story all the more important. “[W]e get a sense of [the] pushback that those in power, state governments, ha[d] against Chinese communities.”

In the official winner announcement, Emily Greenwood, chair of the jury and a professor of classics at Harvard University, described the book as “a dazzlingly innovative and hard-hitting work.” She highlighted its combination of data analysis and storytelling to recover Chinese voices obscured in legal and bureaucratic records.

Fellow panelist and finalist Alexander Lee described a similar challenge of working with fragments in writing his book The First Ghetto: Venice and the Jews. He argued that scholarship often separates Jewish residents’ experiences from the surrounding Christian society, “as if the ghetto’s walls were also built around the archives.”

With his book, Lee examined how the Venice Jewish community’s position was continually negotiated. Alongside persecution, his account considers the relationships and institutions through which residents sustained community. He described studying architecture, commerce, and domestic space to understand experiences that government records alone could not capture.

Jonathan Cheng, the third co-panellist and other Cundhill Prize finalist, was honoured for his work, Korean Messiah: Kim II Sung and the Christian Roots of North Korea’s Personality Cult, about the intersections of religious influence and political power through a history of North Korea’s founding Kim family.

This project, Cheng explained, grew from his own curiosity about the Kim family’s Christian background, beginning as a newspaper article but eventually becoming the 768-page book in question. Cheng relied on missionary diaries and correspondence, alongside critically-examined North Korean publications, to investigate connections between Kim Il Sung’s upbringing and the political system that the leader established. “It is about personality cults. It is about the blending of politics and religion,” Cheng said.

When the panel discussion turned to the contemporary significance of these respective histories, Lew-Williams highlighted the continuing influence of nineteenth-century anti-Chinese legal cases on immigrants’ rights. Cheng, for his part, discussed the intertwining of politics and religion across contemporary societies. Lee cautioned that prejudice can persist by changing its form, even as historical circumstances differ.

Lee also emphasized the importance of empathy in historical research. “We seek to put ourselves in their shoes, to see what they saw, to feel what they felt, to know their hopes and fears,” he told the audience. Together, the three books show how recovering personal accounts and stories can deepen our understanding of the laws, communities, and political systems that shape history.

The post Princeton Professor Beth Lew-Williams Wins 2026 Cundill History Prize appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Decisions about tuition and immigration affect where students can afford to study and whether they can remain in Quebec after graduation, yet students in the province do not have equal electoral power over those decisions. Voting in provincial elections requires Canadian citizenship and at least six months of domicile in Quebec, among other conditions. Eligible students can support candidates whose proposals on tuition, university funding, and immigration reflect their needs. Those who cannot vote must navigate the resulting policies without having a ballot to influence who sets them.

For international students hoping to remain in Quebec after graduation, the parties offer different approaches to immigration. According to New Canadian Media’s campaign reporting, the Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ) proposes maintaining annual permanent immigration at 45,000 through 2029, while the Parti Québécois (PQ) proposes lowering that number to 35,000 and prioritizing students and skilled workers already in the province. Québec Solidaire (QS) proposes 70,000 permanent admissions annually and restoring the Programme de l’expérience québécoise (PEQ).

Beyond the parties’ admission targets, eligibility rules determine which graduates can apply to stay. The PEQ currently allows eligible international Quebec graduates and temporary foreign workers to apply for provincial selection for permanent immigration. Its current graduate intake, open until October 31, requires applicants to have obtained an eligible diploma by November 19, 2025, and to meet the program’s other conditions. Students beginning their degrees this fall therefore cannot treat the temporary reopening as a pathway secured for their own graduation.

The PQ’s proposed priority for students already here and QS’s promise to restore the PEQ deserve scrutiny on precisely this point: which students would qualify, under what conditions, and when? An overall admissions target does not answer those questions or guarantee an individual graduate permanent residence. Quebec selects applicants for skilled-worker immigration, while the federal government makes the final decision on permanent residence. Eligible student voters can weigh these competing proposals when choosing their representatives.

Provincial funding helps determine what resources are available for teaching, research,and student support. At McGill’s April 23 Board of Governors meeting, President Deep Saini reported that Quebec’s 2026-27 budget would increase funding for Quebec universities by 5.5 per cent. The board also approved a balanced budget for the 2027 fiscal year while projecting operating deficits of $33 million for the 2028 fiscal year, and a $55 million deficit for 2029.

The parties’ tuition proposals would also benefit different groups of students. According to The Concordian, Québec Solidaire proposes halving tuition for Quebec students during its first term while maintaining current rates for students from outside the province. The CAQ, meanwhile, has defended higher tuition for out-of- province students. A promise to make university more affordable therefore needs to be judged by which students it includes and which students would continue paying the same rates.

Language policy links university funding to another question: how can students from outside Quebec participate in the province’s public life? Under agreements announced in June, Quebec will provide up to $20 million annually across McGill, Concordia, and Bishop’s to support French learning. Beginning with the fall 2026 cohort, the agreements set an institutional target: 60 per cent of out-of-province students in eligible, in-person undergraduate programs should reach level 4 in spoken French on Quebec’s proficiency scale by graduation. Level 4 is the highest beginner level on the provincial scale and involves basic proficiency in everyday communication. If McGill or Concordia misses the target, Quebec can recover a portion of the funding provided, proportional to the shortfall. McGill should explain which French courses count toward degree requirements and provide accessible learning opportunities for students with limited room for electives. A target measured at graduation is only useful if students are given realistic opportunities to reach it.

Learning French can help students follow Quebec’s political debates and participate in them. That participation should include the freedom to question the immigration, tuition, and language policies affecting their lives. McGill’s efforts to encourage engagement with Quebec should therefore give all students, including those who cannot vote, opportunities to discuss and challenge those policies.

For students who cannot vote, participation can include asking questions at public discussions, contributing to student journalism by writing opinion pieces or sharing their own experiences, or working with community organizations. McGill and its student associations can support that participation through bilingual election information and discussions that welcome students with different levels of familiarity with Quebec politics. Students’ concerns should carry weight in university and public debate before October 5 and after the ballots are counted, whether or not they are eligible to vote.

The post Beyond the Ballot 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.

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.

These differences in cost are continually shaped by provincial politics. In 2023, the Quebec government announced higher tuition requirements for out-of- province Canadian students at English-language universities such as McGill and Concordia, alongside new French-language measures. McGill and Concordia challenged some parts of these policies in court with the Quebec Superior Court delivering its verdict in April 2025. The court ruled the measures unreasonable, finding that the government had not provided sufficient evidence to justify the tuition increase and that the French-language target was nearly impossible to achieve. While the French-language requirement was struck down, Quebec revised its tuition policy and chose to maintain the higher fees in January 2026. The increased out-of-province rates remain in effect for the 2026- 2027 academic year. While students may attend the same university, take the same courses, and may even sit beside each other in the same lecture hall, their different hometowns means they’ll pay dramatically different fees for the same university experience. Tuition, however, is only the beginning of this problem.

The variation in cost of attending McGill as an out-of-province or international student
is also significant, particularly when it comes to the choice of living in residence for first year. At New Residence Hall, for example, a regular double room costs $1,575 a month per
student while a single room costs $1,800. Students also have to purchase a mandatory $6,150 meal plan alongside other residence fees.

Cheaper options exist, such as Solin Hall, where rooms start at $1,135 a month and students cook for themselves; however, they must commute to campus. Some first-years also choose to live off-campus, while local Quebec students who can stay with family may avoid housing costs altogether. For a first-year student already adjusting to university life, these costs can make life in Montreal feel very different from the affordable city they may have imagined.

The rental situation outside residence is more complicated. After years of increasing prices, Montreal’s rental market has begun to show some signs of cooling. Statistics Canada reported that the average rent for a two-bedroom apartment fell 5.2 per cent between the second quarters of 2025 and 2026. Still, this does not mean that housing has suddenly become affordable for students. Canada Mortgage Housing Corporation reported that rents rose 7.2 per cent in 2025 and that the city’s most affordable units remained particularly difficult to find. Students already working with limited budgets do not necessarily feel the effects of a cooling rental market following years of increasing housing costs.

McGill itself recommends Milton-Parc, downtown, and the Lower Plateau for students who want to stay close to campus, while pointing students looking to save money towards neighbourhoods such as Verdun, NDG, Hochelaga, Villeray and Parc-Extension. The latter set of options are farther away and are therefore cheaper at the cost of a longer commute.

The most obvious response to rising student expenses is often what I like to label as the “just get a job” choir. While people will often give this response to students facing financial troubles, the solution is not always as simple as it sounds. Montreal cut 21,000 jobs in August alone, while the city’s unemployment rate stood at 6.5 per cent. Although this was comparable to Toronto’s 6.7 per cent and Vancouver’s 6.5 per cent, the sharp monthly loss of employment points to a difficult job market for students who are looking for work. The unemployment rate for people aged 15 to 24 was 12.9 per cent, and among students planning to return to school it was 15.6 per cent nation- wide. For students who do not speak French, the search can be even more limited, 28 per cent of English- speaking adults in Quebec who had recently applied for a job or promotion felt they had been unsuccessful because of language-related reasons.

Working a part-time job during university can be a valuable experience for many students, yet there is a difference between choosing to work part-time for extra cash and depending on a job to afford the costs of university. These hours spent working to afford one’s studies are lost hours that could have been spent studying, participating in clubs, volunteering or simply resting. McGill does provide financial support to its students. Based on university data, McGill offered more than $6.2 million in entrance scholarships to over 2,000 students in its most recent admission cycle. It also distributed $6.3 million in need- based entrance bursaries to 550 incoming students with average bursary amounts increasing in accordance to tuition status. Even though these programs make university possible for students who might otherwise struggle to attend, the existence of financial aid does not erase the larger question of whether the cost of university itself has become increasingly difficult to manage.

Quebec is not unfamiliar with this question. In 2012, thousands of students wore red felt or fabric squares and marched in what became known as the Printemps Érable, or Maple Spring. The protest was mainly organized to oppose planned increases to university tuition as well as concerns surrounding student debt and access to education. The movement secured a key victory in September 2012, when Pauline Marois’ newly elected Parti Quebecois government cancelled the planned tuition increases, fulfilling a central demand of the student strike. Fourteen years later, tuition remains part of the affordability debate but has now grown more pertinent alongside issues such as rising rent, food security, employment, residence costs, and the disparity of costs across many demographics of students.

Montreal is still less expensive than many other major North American university cities. Both these things can be true, while still keeping the door open for debate regarding affordability for the city’s student population. For an international student paying substantially higher tuition, a student relying on part-time work, or someone trying to cover rent without family support, life in the same city, at the same university, can look completely different.

If Montreal wants to continue defining itself as a student city, affordability should mean more than simply being cheaper than somewhere else. It should also mean that the students can realistically and comfortably afford to live and study here.

The post Can Montreal Still Afford the title of Student City? appeared first on The McGill Daily.