Last week, The Tribune reported on the detention of a University Affairs (UA) staff member. In the Association of Graduate Students Employed at McGill (AGSEM)’s report of events, they wrote that an armed guard “attempted to question her and said that he would break her camera while refusing to identify himself or tell her what she was accused of.”
The mission statement of Campus Public Safety is to “make McGill a place that is safe, and to provide an open environment that fosters learning and education.” It is a commendable mission. In light of this mission statement, students should be able to go about lawful activities without being threatened with a gun. The Dec. 11 detention of a UA staff member threatened the safety of a McGill community member and those nearby. It is the responsibility of Campus Public Safety to protect the McGill community from external, aggressive armed parties like these.
My staff member reported that she was not allowed to leave the McConnell Engineering Building because she refused to show her McGill ID. After requesting to see any documents that mandate the presentation of student ID in this scenario, the Campus Public Safety Operations Manager said no security services documents can be shared.
I submitted an access to information (ATI) request about the Security Services’ Standards, Policy & Procedures Manual, including a document that had already been released to SSMU in 2017 in a previous ATI request. McGill withheld the entire manual, even the section that had been previously disclosed.
The Campus Public Safety site has changed since March 2024. All staff names have been wiped, making the ‘Senior Director’s message (previously signed by Pierre Barbarie) especially meaningless. Since February 2024, names have been removed from the description of ‘Our team’ in the ‘Contact Us’ section. The positions of Administrative Coordinator (Security Services), Operations Manager (Security Services, Downtown Campus), Supervisor (Investigations and Community Relations), Manager (Physical Security Systems), and Associate Director (Environmental Health and Safety) have been removed entirely, making them uncontactable, presuming they still exist.
Finally, a new section has been added to the site: ‘Agent Engagement.’ It says, “Note that agents will produce identification upon request unless there is an estimated risk to their safety. If you have a concern or wish to file a complaint about our services, please complete the online Complaint form or email [email protected].”
Upon request by a SSMU employee, the Bureau de Sécurité Privée (BSP), the regulatory body that governs private security in Quebec, confirmed that when McGill guards refuse to show a license upon request, they are breaking the BSP regulations and should be reported.
While a complaint form has been in place for years, its existence is not well known. Finding the form is no easy task—on the Campus Public Safety website, one must click on ‘Report an Incident’ for the ‘File a complaint’ menu to appear. When my staff member filed a complaint about her detention, she received a message stating that she would “receive a reply from the Associate Director/or designate by email confirming that a review of [her] complaint [was] underway in a period of no less than 48 business hours,” but she never heard back.
In 2022, the blurb about Security Services read, “[t]he Security Services Team strives to create and maintain a safe campus experience for students, staff, faculty and visitors. If you have any questions or concerns, please reach out to us. We are here to serve the McGill community.” The 2024 version read: “We offer our services on a 24-hour basis to all members of the McGill community. Our agents patrol the campus, manage access, transport students and staff with disabilities as well as respond to incidents and emergencies.” The difference in the self-description of security services from 2022 to 2024 encapsulates a change in mission from community care to one that positions itself against students, treating them as potential criminals rather than essential stakeholders.
According to Provost Christopher Manfredi and Vice-President (Administration and Finance) Fabrice Labeau, McGill does not train its private security contractors on university policies such as the Charter of Students’ Rights, drawing rightful concern from students. But the first McGill security agent to arrive on the scene also reprimanded my staff member for refusing to leave, even while she was being detained and pinned to the wall. Security services are protecting abusive agents—including agents belonging to outside parties—at the cost of student safety.
When students complain about a heightened security presence, they are worried about their physical safety. While other universities’ security departments provide a range of services, including first aid, travel accompaniment, and site security assessment—resources that foster links between the community and security—McGill shirks these resources onto student groups. Those not covered by SSMU don’t exist at all. An outsider assaulting a SSMU staff member, and the subsequent involvement of McGill agents, is an opportunity to address students’ mistrust of security services. It is an opportunity to commit to a fresh approach to campus safety. But instead, our questions and concerns go unanswered.
