Quebec’s tuition protesters are the Greeks of Canada

[mik]

I don't have any problem with your way of thinking, as long as you are prepared to pay more for everything you buy. The Government takes it's money from your/my pocket, and business. Remember businesses are there to make a profit, the more they make the more in re-invest. If they have to pay more, they will charge more, simple really. But don't forget we now live in a global socitey, so you have to figure out a way not to penalize the Canadian companies, who pay those extra taxes. Companies from other counties who will not pay those extra taxes will be selling thier products cheaper, how will Canadian compaines compete, in Canada and other markets?

That is what we are supposed to believe. The more profit that these businesses make, the richer the CEO and the shareholders become. Where have you been?

 

[Karl Blues]

Great observation but are you able to elaborate with what you disagree with in my statement?

Pointless.

 

[DavidMR]

Everything in your post was completely false and based off nothing more than a notion.

Hardly. If you think you can make $70K as a newly hired nurse with part time shifts, you're kidding yourself.

The bit about Quebec in your post speaks for itself.

 

[rygu]

Hardly. If you think you can make $70K as a newly hired nurse with part time shifts, you're kidding yourself.

The bit about Quebec in your post speaks for itself.

Male RPNs are in huge demand, I am not talking an RN I am talking an RPN. Being as my mom and aunt work in the field and know many others who do, I think I know what I am talking about.

As for Quebec, 51/49 ring a bell?

Your post speaks for itself as well, and it speaks poorly.

 

[jesuschrist]

I am finding many of the comments and articles surrounding this protest disgusting.

We are being told that the only schooling worth while are trades. Forget any sort of arts, forget any sort of culture or history or knowledge in general outside of knowledge that helps you become a model employee. The only way you are worthwhile is if you are prepared to slave away for some company straight out of school, preferably helping that company rape the earth a little bit more everyday. Our history and culture apparently aren't worth teaching, no money in it.

I think post secondary education should be free for students, and it should be business and government/taxes paying for it (especially business) as society in general reaps the benefits of an educated work force. If you have the grades you should be allowed to pursue whatever education you desire. A lot of people feel this way coast to coast, some in Quebec have decided to fight for it while the rest of the country more or less rolled over years ago.

Yep, the world is disgusting.... but that's the way of the world: companies need to make profits because we need to have economies of scale so that our civilization can advance. Compared to your world, which is like heaven, where nobody has to be accountable for what they spend, where you can get education for free - no matter what you study - even if you spend 10 years studying art history, where you are supposedly a "model employee" for Starbucks if you spent 4 years studying French poetry, yes... the real world is disgusting. Too bad you have to live in it, but worse for us is that you live in it with those of us who are realistic about things.

You would like businesses to pay for things, to bear the burden financially by default. If you knew anything about economics, you would realize this would never work because businesses would shift the burden of the costs to the consumer - and drive up inflation, then everybody becomes poorer. Worse yet is that we live in a competitive global system, so businesses around the world would just undercut us who burdened our businesses with these things. Look at the USA, their businesses have become uncompetitive because they burdened them with the cost of health care.

 

[Ray]

Look at the USA, their businesses have become uncompetitive because they burdened them with the cost of health care.

The cost of healthcare is the least of their problems. It was just introduced in 2010, so it couldn't possibly be responsible for the economic downturn.

Arts and History used to be a pursuit for those that didn't need to work for a living. Now everyone is jumping on that bandwagon and are shocked to find out that their degree is worth nothing in the marketplace. It IS, however, a good way to gain supplemental credits while at university to become a more 'well rounded' person.
History is something I study in my spare time because it fascinates me.

As I read through these threads, I think it bears reminding that not everyone is capable of working with their hands, not everyone is capable of a job that requires higher education. No need to put someone down because they're in a different category from you.

 

[Tugela]

The cost of healthcare is the least of their problems. It was just introduced in 2010, so it couldn't possibly be responsible for the economic downturn.

The costs of healthcare has been around a lot longer than 2010. The reason it is such a burden on the US economy is because it is treated as a means to make money rather than supply healthcare. Huge amounts of resources are spent in unproductive ways as a result. That makes the US economy inherently inefficient.

 

[Tugela]

I am finding many of the comments and articles surrounding this protest disgusting.

We are being told that the only schooling worth while are trades. Forget any sort of arts, forget any sort of culture or history or knowledge in general outside of knowledge that helps you become a model employee. The only way you are worthwhile is if you are prepared to slave away for some company straight out of school, preferably helping that company rape the earth a little bit more everyday. Our history and culture apparently aren't worth teaching, no money in it.

I think post secondary education should be free for students, and it should be business and government/taxes paying for it (especially business) as society in general reaps the benefits of an educated work force. If you have the grades you should be allowed to pursue whatever education you desire. A lot of people feel this way coast to coast, some in Quebec have decided to fight for it while the rest of the country more or less rolled over years ago.

There is nothing wrong with studing art or history or stuff like that, but you don't need to go to University to do that.

If you don't have the money to pay for your education (in other words independently wealthy) then you need to understand that what is paid is an investment. If you (and/or your family) is willing to invest in something that will never repay the debt, then fine, do it but don't blame anyone else for what happens, and don't expect SOMEONE ELSE to pay for it. If you truly want to study something that has little material payback, then be prepared to spend time in the salt mines or whatever to make the money to pay for it FIRST. Or go and be a SP, or something else to finance your interests.

 

[WrongMan]

There is nothing wrong with studing art or history or stuff like that, but you don't need to go to University to do that.

If you don't have the money to pay for your education (in other words independently wealthy) then you need to understand that what is paid is an investment. If you (and/or your family) is willing to invest in something that will never repay the debt, then fine, do it but don't blame anyone else for what happens, and don't expect SOMEONE ELSE to pay for it. If you truly want to study something that has little material payback, then be prepared to spend time in the salt mines or whatever to make the money to pay for it FIRST. Or go and be a SP, or something else to finance your interests.

First thing it is not just arts and history majors upset with the raising cost of Universities. The economy is crap so everyone is having trouble finding work. A person with an university degree and experience is going to have first choice over any work available. So a young kid who finished his degree is going to have trouble finding work in almost every field. It is an issue in Canada and even worst in the States.

And second I don't think wages are keeping up with the cost of living. Everything is going up our salaries are not keeping pace.

As for history and arts majors they have jobs opportunities the same as everyone else. For example with a history degree you develop research, writing and critical thinking skills. So you got educators, researchers, writers, editors, information managers, lawyers and business. A number of US Presidents were history majors.

In fact a history's major average starting salary in the states is about the same as a business major.

 

[jesuschrist]

The cost of healthcare is the least of their problems. It was just introduced in 2010, so it couldn't possibly be responsible for the economic downturn..

It's called employer-sponsored health benefits and has been around since the 1940s in the United States, and typically about 85% of the employee's premiums are covered by the employer.

 

[visiting]

That is what we are supposed to believe. The more profit that these businesses make, the richer the CEO and the shareholders become. Where have you been?

so...... with your thinking nobody should make any money?

 

[Flanders]

The university students of Quebec after the tuition increases (which they feel is unfair enough to validate actions such as destruction of property and lobbing maltov cocktails) will still pay the LOWEST costs for a university degree in Canada.Yeah it is a bitch when costs go up but I myself dont cause destruction at my local Safeway when green peppers cost 30% more because of a bad harvest.

Thugs and whining pussies who feel entiteled to a nearly free education is what those fuckers are.....griping about paying less than any other province in Canada....yet in the grand scheme of things the rest of Canada is footing the bill due to the one sided transfer payments that Quebec gets from the federal government.

I hope that Premier Charest sticks to his guns and does not back down because of some civil unrest by a bunch of self interested cry-babies who are unwilling to pay for a cheaper education than the rest of Canada can get.

SR

Hahaha! Oh, and protest the "dirty" oil sands while you're at it. Nevermind that the robust economic output contributes to the transfer payments that make you cheap education possible in the first place.

The idiots who protest don't have a clue as to where the money magically comes from, they just know they 'deserve' more for less.

 

[kickback]

Pointless.

Because you disagree or not able to express a point of view?

 

[DavidMR]

As for Quebec, 51/49 ring a bell?

Your post speaks for itself as well, and it speaks poorly.

Are you talking about the 1995 referendum?

As for your salary expectations, I found this on the Kwantlen College website:

What kind of salary do psychiatric nurses make?
In the province of British Columbia a RPN usually starts at an annual salary range of $ 51,000 to $ 62,000, in par with RN salary range. There may be additional bonuses in northern geographic locations. In addition, the benefit packages for nurses are quite attractive. The next contract for RPNs (under UPN) is at par with the BCNU contract. Salary also varies depending on the grid level of the contract which has levels from 4 – 9.

http://www.kwantlen.ca/health/bpn/faqs.html

 

[DavidMR]

The idiots who protest don't have a clue as to where the money magically comes from, they just know they 'deserve' more for less.

The biggest idiots in Canada are the ones who never ask where all the oil money is going. How much of it is sticking to Canadians?

 

[Karl Blues]

Because you disagree or not able to express a point of view?

Because you cite no studies or statistics. Show me one point of reference that proves your point.

Your post contains nothing but generalizations.

 

[Miss*Bijou]

Don’t Kid Yourself: We all pay for the defunding of higher education


I went to McGill in the late 80s and early 90s when tuition fees were less than $1,200 a year, so with summer jobs and some parental help I graduated from my first degree debt-free. For my MA, which I took in Ontario, I worked part-time and graduated after one year with a debt of $10,000.

By way of comparison: my partner went to university in Ontario after grants were eliminated, and when the first round of tuition fee hikes were implemented. He completed a BA and then an MA, and graduated with a debt load (and compound interest) requiring monthly payments of close to $650 for 10 years.

We know we benefited, and are benefiting from, our education. Both of us have found employment that allows us to make use of what we studied, and each of us paid back our loans. But that debt (particularly my partner’s), until it was fully repaid, impacted every major decision we made as a couple and then later as a family. And we still live with those decisions: when we bought a house, when we had kids, how many kids we could afford to have, the fact that we don’t own a car, how often we see our families who live out of town. (The other determining factor is the high cost of child care outside of Quebec.)

...

It is within this context that we need to examine the rhetorical criticisms levied against the Quebec student strike and the people involved.


Tuition fees in Quebec are the lowest in the country. What have they got to complain about?

It’s less surprising that Quebec students are protesting than it is that students in other provinces aren’t. Perhaps if there had been sustained mass uprisings in other provinces fees wouldn’t be $6,600 in Ontario, or an average of about $5,500 in the rest of Canada. Maybe then we’d have more middle-income families able to avoid the “do we retire, or take out another mortgage on the house, or watch our kid graduate with upwards of $30,000 in debt” conversation taking place in many Ontario households.

We also need to question the whole “you’ve got it less bad than others, so stop whining” argument that’s used to marginalize anyone fighting for improvements. After Quebec, who’s next? Newfoundland-Labrador’s fees are the next cheapest (and not by much, thanks to a 25% rollback and freeze a few years ago that has according to the Canadian Federation of Students resulted in a 5% increase in participation rates)—do we turn our jealousy on them? Then Manitoba? Until we’re all equally indebted? How is that a solution?


Okay, fine. They want a tuition freeze. Where are they going to find the money? Or what are they going to give up to get it?

Think back to that three-legged stool. Educated societies are healthier. More equitable societies are safer. These things work together to create a better standard of living for all of us. Rather than kicking out one leg of the stool to “afford” the other two, perhaps we should focus on the real threat that is crushing the stool itself (and no, it ain’t socialism!)–government decisions that lead to the consistent underfunding of public social infrastructure.

But while we’re on the subject of “finding” money to pay for Quebec’s social programs, let’s take a look at provincial funding for private schools: $437 million in 2006-07. That’s money being used to “support” middle-income families who want to access education as a private good, rather than putting that money towards ensuring public schools better serve the needs of all kids. It would pay for a fee freeze at Quebec universities and have money left over for bursaries for low-income students. Or the remainder could be redirected towards public schools. But it does demonstrate that when public money is used to facilitate private access, it’s the public infrastructure and the people accessing it who pay the price.


Why are they inconveniencing my life because of their issues?

The point of a strike is to disrupt—to draw attention to what is going on, and to create public momentum in calling for alternatives. It makes little sense to protest in the middle of nowhere so as not to interrupt day-to-day activity merely to be “polite”. When workers strike one goal is to demonstrate how much the public needs their service and why they should be adequately compensated for their work. When students strike their goal is more nuanced–these are community members and future workers upon whose labour, skills and knowledge we will increasingly depend.

But more broadly: you think you’re inconvenienced because your shopping trip is delayed or because you’re held up in traffic? Just wait for the “inconvenience” society will have to deal with because government policies and priorities are creating an underclass of educated youth with fewer job prospects who are tired of elected representatives paying their concerns lip service at best. Dealing with those ramifications will be far more expensive and inconvenient for all of us.


Why you do they think they’re entitled to something better than what I got?

This argument is particularly frustrating when it’s voiced by those (yes, even in Quebec) who paid tuition fees a fraction of today’s, who graduated and sailed into their first job (or were even hired right out of high school because a degree was not yet a job requirement) before wages stagnated and when household debt was not at 150%. They may have had debt, but it was nowhere near what we’re currently seeing. And it could be paid off in a fraction of the time it takes today’s graduates to extricate themselves from the weight of student loans (after years of waiting tables). But it seems healthy pay cheques and years of upward social mobility have also bought some convenient amnesia.

And even if the previous generation had it hard too: why blame Quebec students for fighting for a better situation for themselves and those who come after them? If the standards we set are based on how hard we had it, and anyone who follows should have it at least as hard, what does this say for social progress? Social programs were created because people wanted something better for their children and grandchildren than they themselves had—a decent standard of living, accessible education, health care, financial assistance if they lose their job, and the ability to retire with dignity and some financial security.

As for the “entitled” question: these young people are risking their semester; in the case of students in their final year of study, they’re risking it on behalf of future students. Those students, professors, and family members: they’re protesting for other people’s kids, for the communities we all live in, for people who are not well-served by political decisions that overwhelmingly privilege a wealthy minority. So here’s my question: How difficult do you want their lives to be, before you can feel vindication for the challenges you faced?


Why are they refusing to pay their “fair share”?

What, exactly, is “fair”? Is it as much as you can afford? Is it a percentage of your family income? Is it based on the salary you’re likely to earn when you graduate? Is it based on what the government says it can “afford”? Or on what the rest of the public stands to gain from an educated society?

Some say that because it is “unfair” to subsidize fees for rich and poor alike, we should fully deregulate tuition fees to make the rich pay more, and gear bursaries to low income students.

Well, of course it’s unfair for the poor to have to pay the same amount as the wealthy. User fees are inherently unfair. We should absolutely pay what we can afford—for higher education, and health care, and public infrastructure, and a social safety net that is there for all of us when we need it. Now, if only there was some national mechanism in place where we could calculate the amount we owe based on our incomes to pay for these programs that are vital to a well-functioning, equitable, healthy, educated society. Perhaps we could record it all in a single form, and set aside a day each year to do this, to make it more coordinated and efficient. I suggest April 30th.

Because as we know, the most effective, efficient, fair and accountable way to pay for these programs is through a progressive tax system. So while I recognize the need to keep tuition fees affordable, and the importance of a national grants system like the rest of the industrialized world enjoys, it’s a stop-gap measure. If we are truly committed to fairness, the goal must be—in the interests of economic efficiency and social justice, but also in recognition of the importance of a highly educated society—fully public (not to be confused with “free”) higher education.


Why should I pay for their education?

These are the kids who will be your doctors, lawyers, teachers, engineers, social workers, health care workers, dentists, architects, librarians….do you get the picture? Even though I have no intention of going to med school, I sure hope the person performing any surgery on me did. And it would be nice to know that the teacher at the front of my kid’s class isn’t exhausted because they’ve been working a second job waiting tables to pay off their student debt. We depend on their work, professionalism, and what they bring to our communities to enrich us all.

Of course, there are “return on investment” arguments: increased incomes earned by those with degrees mean more taxes paid into the system, more disposable income etc. But there are other arguments which are even more substantial: improved health, greater civic engagement and community involvement, more social mobility and increased electoral participation. In other words, societies with better access to education tend to be healthier, more cohesive, more tolerant and more equitable places to live, work, and raise families.

Which means it comes down to this: we’re not paying for “their” education. All of us, including those students in the streets, are paying for the right to live in an educated society. With all of the vast benefits that brings.


http://www.behindthenumbers.ca/2012...ll-pay-for-the-defunding-of-higher-education/

"If you’re attending a government university and paying a tuition fee, then by definition, you are paying a tax to the government. When the government discusses raising tuition fees, what they are actually describing is raising taxes on students. And the vast majority of national pundits not only support this tax increase, they think that the students who oppose it are spoiled brats who are just throwing a childish tantrum. Well. At least we found a tax increase that the national media support, for a change.

Which, you have to admit, is hypocrisy of the highest order. Watch these greedy, self-interested, short-sighted pricks scream and stamp their feet like spoiled children if the government ever proposes a similar tax hike on them. The moment that happens, they’ll start screeching endlessly about how if you raise their taxes, their fragile will to work hard and be productive will go up in a puff of self-interested smoke, the good people will all flee to sanctuary in countries that still respect free wallets, and Canada will follow Greece and Italy into socialist hell. Greece and Italy, those well-known bastions of the Scandinavian tax-and-spend welfare state."

http://sixthestate.net/?p=4879

Are Albertans really paying for Quebec’s social programs?


Calgary – Student protests in Quebec have triggered a curious response from some observers. Appalled that Quebecers have the audacity to protest tuition fees rising from the lowest in the country to possibly the second-lowest, they opine that the only reason Quebec can afford such fees in the first place is on the back of the Alberta taxpayer. As the narrative goes, Quebec’s low tuition, $7-a-day daycare and other generous social programs are all being paid for by hard-working Albertans who could only dream of affording such luxuries themselves.

This story appeals to Albertans convinced that Ottawa and Quebec are stealing their wealth, but this is simply not the case.

Let’s start with the idea that Alberta sends money to Quebec. This is incorrect on two levels.

First, Ottawa charges people the same taxes regardless of where they live, and puts all the money into a big pot called general revenue. Assuming a balanced budget, all federal program spending, including on transfers like equalization, comes out of that same pot. As such, federal taxes raised in Quebec help fund farm subsidies in Alberta. Taxpaying New Brunswickers contribute to Employment Insurance payments in Saskatchewan. And yes, federal taxes raised in Alberta help pay for equalization in Quebec.

Second is the mistaken belief that the Alberta government cuts a cheque to Ottawa to pay for equalization and other transfers. In fact, these are paid by federal taxpayers (including those in Alberta) with no involvement from the provincial government. Equalization does not affect the Alberta government’s bottom line. But at the same time, Alberta cannot therefore simply “opt out” of equalization.

It is also untrue that equalization allows Quebec to afford services that are impossibly generous for Alberta. The equalization formula tells us that the Alberta government could collect twice as much revenue as Quebec (including its equalization payments) if both provinces had identical tax rates. In other words, Alberta could easily afford tuition rates lower than those in Quebec, and plenty more besides, if it was willing to pay for them.

This brings us to another misunderstanding about equalization. Its purpose is not to ensure a uniform level of provincial-government services across Canada, but rather to ensure that provinces have the ability to provide comparable services at comparable tax rates. Each province can choose how much – and on what – to spend, but it has to pay for those choices. Yes, Quebec has more generous social programs than Alberta. It also has taxes that most Albertans would consider appallingly high.

But do Albertans not contribute more to federal coffers compared to people living in other provinces? Of course they do. And Canadians across the country benefit from that contribution. But this is not the result of some elaborate plot to drain wealth out of the West and give it to welfare recipients in the East. It’s simply because Alberta’s economy is strong. The “problem” is that wages and employment rates in Alberta are much higher than anywhere else in Canada. More Albertans have jobs, and they earn higher incomes, so they end up paying more in taxes.

Can we eliminate this “injustice?” Sure.

One option is to shut down some of Alberta’s industries to bring economic output and unemployment rates closer to the national average. Alternatively, all Albertans could take a voluntary pay cut to bring our salaries in line with those of other Canadians. Or they could ask the federal government to implement a special “Alberta” set of tax rates – so that they can pay lower taxes than all other Canadians to compensate them for being richer than the rest of the country.

The bottom line is that Albertans contribute more to confederation because their economy is strong. Someone earning $100,000 pays more taxes than someone earning $50,000. Alberta is simply home to more six-figure salaries.

Because of that wealth, the Alberta government could afford to provide social services that would make Quebec’s seem miserly by comparison. But Albertans have chosen a different path. If Quebecers wish to keep tuition low and enjoy $7-a-day daycare while paying high taxes that risk discouraging economic growth, that’s their decision to make. Besides, would they want to trade places?

http://www.canada.com/business/Albertans+really+paying+Quebec+social+programs/6518304/story.html

 

[Miss*Bijou]

The student strikes in Quebec, which began in February and have lasted for three months, involving roughly 175,000 students in the mostly French-speaking Canadian province, have been subjected to a massive provincial and national media propaganda campaign to demonize and dismiss the students and their struggle.

The following is a list of ten points that everyone should know about the student movement in Quebec to help place their struggle in its proper global context.

1 – The issue is debt, not tuition

2 – Striking students in Quebec are setting an example for youth across the continent

3 – The student strike was organized through democratic means and with democratic aims

4 – This is not an exclusively Quebecois phenomenon

5 – Government officials and the media have been openly calling for violence and “fascist” tactics to be used against the students

6 – Excessive state violence has been used against the students

7 – The government supports organized crime and opposes organized students

8 – Canada’s elites punish the people and oppose the students

9 – The student strike is being subjected to a massive and highly successful propaganda campaign to discredit, dismiss, and demonize the students

10 – The student movement is part of a much larger emerging global movement of resistance against austerity, neoliberalism, and corrupt power

Read the whole thing: http://theintelhub.com/2012/05/14/ten-points-everyone-should-know-about-the-quebec-student-movement/

Students began walking out on their classes in February. More than three months later, the dispute has become the longest student strike in Quebec history. The stubborn persistence of the strike has left many in the rest of Canada scratching their heads over why there’s been such uproar. Even in Quebec, the intensity of the protests has puzzled observers. “The whole political and media class has been taken by surprise,” says Eric Pineault, a sociologist at the Université de Quebec à Montréal (UQAM). Quebecers currently enjoy the lowest tuition in the country. And never mind that with Premier Jean Charest’s proposed hike, the average tuition in Quebec would then be the second-lowest in Canada. Yet more than 165,000 students are on strike indefinitely. Many of them will lose their semester if they don’t head back to class soon. How did the movement attain such strength and longevity?

The answer lies largely with a particular thrust in Quebec society that links ideals of social democracy—such as widely affordable university education—to a sense of national identity. These ties date back to the Quiet Revolution of the 1960s, a time when Quebecers became maîtres, or masters, of their own province, instituting changes that gave Quebec a more left-leaning bent than elsewhere in North America. “The Quiet Revolution is a very important moment in Quebec history,” says André Pratte, editor of Montreal’s La Presse newspaper. “Every time someone questions the decisions that were made at the time, it’s almost as if you are trying to destroy a very important part of that moment.”

The era spawned the Parent report, a document that created the province’s tuition-free colleges (called CEGEPs) and founded its network of universities. At the core of the report lay a dedication to make post-secondary education free for all Quebecers.

In the years since, as tuition fees gradually climbed in English Canada and the United States, Quebec students have repeatedly taken to the streets to defend the spirit of the Parent report. “Our parents and our grandparents fought for it,” says Fédération étudiante universitaire du Québec (FEUQ) president Martine Desjardins. “We are very proud of this.”

Even so, as the strike drags on, many might wonder why the parents of protesting Quebecers haven’t been more vocal about the conflict. Shouldn’t they be upset that their kids might lose a semester, especially if they’re footing the bill? It might be because the amount of money on the line is so insignificant; indeed, many Quebec students are completely self-sufficient. But parental tolerance for the lengthy strike also reflects a culture of student protests that spans generations. Just as they took to the streets to protest in decades past, now many of them see it as the duty of their children to do the same.

Still, there’s no question something is different about the intensity of these protests, says Pierre Martin, a professor of political science at the Université de Montréal. Charest’s proposal isn’t a mere tweak to an old system, he says. It’s an unprecedented departure from the model outlined in the Parent report, a system founded in the image of low-tuition Scandinavia, France and Germany. The changes will make it more expensive. More North American. “This is why students are protesting right now, to preserve this accessibility that we’ve been talking about for years,” says Desjardins, a 30-year-old Ph.D. student at UQÀM. “They’re doing this for the next generation.”

http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/05/11/a-not-so-quiet-student-riot/

Lessons from Quebec's Student Protests
They pay less than BC's post-secondary crowd, yet the revolt is unlikely to spread west. Here's why.


Quebec and British Columbia could well be described as sister provinces. Both siblings are photogenic and outdoorsy, with more than a hint of estrangement from the ROC ("Rest Of Canada").

Politically, both provinces feature socially progressive urban centres, routinely mocked by those outside the big cities. Both are governed by unpopular Liberal premiers: Jean Charest, an ex-Tory, and Christy Clark, who has started recruiting federal Conservative staffers at an impressive rate.

Charest and Clark are each caught between a resurgent, traditional social-democratic opposition and an upstart right-of-centre party. With elections looming, both premiers appear to be tacking to the right, trying to squeeze out their business-friendly opponents -- John Cummins in B.C. and François Legault in Quebec.

In Quebec, this shift has crystallized in the decision to hike tuition fees by 75 per cent over the next seven years. At an average of $1,625 per student, the savings for government would be modest, but symbolic.

Backed by roughly half the population, the government has faced down 175,000 striking post-secondary students, refusing to reinstate a tuition freeze. Electorally, the Liberals' tough stance appears to be working. Last week the Quebec Liberal Party squeezed out a first-place finish in a CROP poll conducted for La Presse, leading to speculation that Charest is polishing his campaign buses with little red felt squares.

That ubiquitous red square, by the way, is a play on the phrase "carrément dans le rouge," or "squarely in the red." I've pinned one to my jacket to show my philosophical support for the students, even if I think some groups' tactics are counterproductive. My involvement is not totally abstract: I am one of many young people from B.C. to have been lured away at one time by Quebec's excellent and affordable universities.

During my undergrad, B.C. had the fastest-growing tuition fees in the country. According to Statistics Canada, in 2011/2012 undergrads in B.C. paid an average of $4,852 a year, up from $2,527 a decade earlier. That's a 92 per cent increase. (Inflation over the same period was 23 per cent.) In comparison, Quebec looks rather attractive: $2,519 this year versus $1,843 ten years earlier, for a hike of 37 per cent.

The cost of living in Vancouver is also ridiculous. In The Economist's 2012 worldwide cost of living survey, Vancouver is listed as the most expensive city in North America. In Demographia's 2012 housing affordability survey, Vancouver ranked second from the bottom. Montreal ranked 70th.

These numbers raise two interesting questions. If B.C. and Quebec are otherwise comparable, but Quebec students pay half the tuition (and less for rent) -- why have they been protesting for 12 straight weeks? And if Montreal students can get 200,000 marchers to hit the streets (double Vancouver's estimated Game 7 crowd last year), why can't progressives in B.C. muster anything close?


Québécois debout

The answers are likely to be discouraging for anyone hoping for a student-led B.C. "spring" (itself a problematic term). Certain broad strategic lessons do emerge, but first, here's why it won't happen the same way out west.

One could certainly say that Quebecers embody a more robust culture of public protest. Normal middle-class families consider it healthy to take the kids out and hoist placards denouncing things they disagree with. Quebec unions have lent financial and logistical support to the student associations from the beginning. Low tuition fees are a distinct point of "national pride." Quebec progressives recognize a slippery slope when they see one. While the rest of us have been lulled by neoliberal think tanks, Quebecers are awake and pounding the pavement on our behalf. These arguments are all part of the truth.

...

Tuition is unlikely to be the Alamo for British Columbia progressives. For the movement to capture broader appeal in Quebec, the issue will have to morph and evolve. All this as Quebec's election deadline draws closer. Whatever happens next, there's still much to learn from our francophone sister. [Tyee]

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2012/05/01/Quebec-Tuition-Protest/

The CLASSE is the largest of the student coalitions or federations leading the strike movement across Quebec. It represents more than half of the 180,000 students now on strike. In recent days, the Charest government has targeted CLASSE with its sharpest attacks yet, attempting to divide the student movement. Students have responded with repeated mass nighttime demonstrations - an impressive show of unity.

The students are calling for labour and other organizations in Quebec society to join them in a wider 'social strike' against the Charest government.

To supplement our coverage from earlier this week, and to provide some context about this wider appeal to action, we share with you this translation of a statement from CLASSE.



Toward a social strike

Hike in tuition fees is part of "the cultural revolution"

For several weeks now a student revolt has shaken the neoliberal consensus imposed for many years by the Quebec and Canadian governments. It was sparked by the announcement of a new, 75 per cent increase in university tuition fees.
Advertising

Since its announcement in the 2010 Quebec budget, the media lackeys of the Liberal government have attempted to present this measure as inevitable. But behind this claimed inevitability we find an eminently political decision expressed in what the finance minister terms a "cultural revolution," and the international economic authorities refer to as an "austerity budget." Whatever the name given to it by governments, it clearly and definitively involves the dismantling of public services aimed at privatizing what remains of the commons.

The student movement has focused on the issue of tuition fees and the commoditization of the universities. However, it is not unaware that this measure is integrally linked to a larger project affecting elementary and secondary education, the healthcare sector and the unfettered development of natural resources. Our resistance to the Quebec government's neoliberal measures has to take into account all of these sectors, establishing a social link that enables us to speak of a community.

The government is trying to compartmentalize our strike by saying its tuition hike is designed to get the students to pay their "fair share." However, the students have attempted from the outset of the strike to say that their policy goals went beyond the framework of a strict accounting and corporatist exercise with the government. Of course we want to see the government cancel this tuition fee increase, but at the same time we want to challenge the economic imperative that informs the policies of our governments.

If it is to do this, the student movement cannot remain alone, and must be joined by all of the forces that make up our society and make it live - whether it is the workers in healthcare, education and social services; the workers locked out by Rio Tinto and laid off by Aveos, victims of unfettered capitalism; the casual employees of the Couche-Tard convenience stores, denied the right of association; the women faced with Conservative threats to their rights; the elderly forced to work longer; or the Indigenous peoples seeing a new colonization that pillages the territory remaining to them.

From the student strike to the social strike

The striking students are aware of their inability by themselves to force the government to retreat from these various measures. Hence the necessity for the student movement to be joined by all social forces in our fight against Finance Minister Bachand's cultural revolution.

We not appealing here for some superficial support, with a few union full-timers writing a news release repeating for the umpteenth time their support for the student struggle. On the contrary, we are calling for a convergence of the Quebec people as a whole in opposition to the cutbacks and the commoditization of social services and our collective rights. Only a generalization of the student strike to the workplaces can make this convergence effective. It is therefore a call for a social strike that we are issuing to the population as a whole!

The government's response to the students is to muzzle them through the courts and police truncheons. The education minister is making daily efforts to break the strike that the students voted for democratically. Our best response to the hardening of the state's management of the strike is to widen it, to render impossible any isolated repression.

Let us stop fearing the laws that fetter our discontent, let us collectively disobey and go together into the streets of Quebec. Alone, this disobedience will be marginalized and repressed by the government. But if all sectors of Quebec society act together the government will be unable to rely on the courts.

We must build this social strike from the bottom up, by initiating a discussion in the workplaces on how to desert our day-to-day occupations.

http://rabble.ca/news/2012/04/quebec-students-appeal-wider-social-strike-against-charest-government

 

[wilde]

I am a graduate of the Quebec university system and have sympathy and disdain for the students at the same time. With help from my parents (to cover living costs), I was able to put myself thru university with no student loans. I worked 2 part time jobs during school time and full time in the summer to be able to do that. We can discuss the real issue which is always money, money, money... or pretend this is some sort of great social movement. To me, higher education is like driving, it's a privilege not a right. Nobody is putting a gun to your head to take out $30-70K in student loans that you have no idea how to pay back or for a degree that is essentially out of touch with the job market. It's all about your choices and facing the consequences of those choices...

 

[storm rider]

I am a graduate of the Quebec university system and have sympathy and disdain for the students at the same time. With help from my parents (to cover living costs), I was able to put myself thru university with no student loans. I worked 2 part time jobs during school time and full time in the summer to be able to do that. We can discuss the real issue which is always money, money, money... or pretend this is some sort of great social movement. To me, higher education is like driving, it's a privilege not a right. Nobody is putting a gun to your head to take out $30-70K in student loans that you have no idea how to pay back or for a degree that is essentially out of touch with the job market. It's all about your choices and facing the consequences of those choices...

Well said dude and you hvave my respect...I myself worked full time whilst taking a trades course....40 hours of school per week + 40 hours of work per week so I did not go into the hole for a disgustingly huge student loan....I finished the course in record time and I got the 2nd highest score on the final exam....and that is all meaningless and completely wasted as my career now is completely different.

As for Bijou's advocacy for the students and the blah blah blah that tuition is a tax that is a fucking joke...a tax is something that is levied upon an income.....as for the BS about transfer payments if Bijou took the time to actually search the internet for something that would not be supportive to her agenda she would discover that Alberta sends the Federal government MORE money than it receives in Federal transfer payments and Quebec receives MORE money in transfer payments than it SEND...but obviously Bijou did not bother educating herself on something as silly as basic mathematics....most likely she got a university degree or two in such things as Arts or Literature so she can feel important yet they are imparting no monetary benefit because her job is to lay on her back and count ceiling tiles whilst making encouraging noises.

SR