The summer break might have tamed the student protests in Quebec, but Premier Jean Charest's early election call has ensured his proposed tuition hikes will stay on the political agenda.
The protests started back in 2011, when the Charest government proposed to modestly increase tuition fees over the next five years. Quebec's tuition fees haven't increased for 33 out of the last 43 years and this has made the entire system financially unsustainable.
Figures from Statistics Canada show that, for the 2011/2012 year, undergraduate students in Quebec paid an average of just $2,519 a year for their education. Meanwhile, students in Saskatchewan, Alberta and Ontario paid $5,601, $5,662 and $6,640 a year, while the Canadian average was $5,366 a year.
Charest's tuition proposal would have seen Quebec students still paying thousands of dollars less for their tuition in 2017 than students in several other provinces are paying right now.
No organisation, universities included, can continue to provide a quality service if its expenses go up while it is unable to raise sufficient revenue to cover those expenses. In fact, many university officials had actually hoped for larger increases in fees to help them address the chronic underfunding their institutions face compared to their counterparts in other provinces.
Yet Charest was forced to water down his proposal, spreading the proposed tuition increase out over an extended seven-year period instead of five. The new proposal barely covered the cost of inflation over the 2012 to 2019 period, but was still rejected by student groups as unfair.
"Money shouldn't be an issue," one student leader said when asked how else tuition could be funded.
Don't expect the election to end the dispute though. Just last week another student union spokesperson said, "If another political party is elected, for example the Parti Québécois, there will have to be negotiations. The party will have to respond to our demands." It's this kind of attitude that shows that the student unions will keep fighting against even modest and reasonable tuition increases, regardless of the result of the election.
The problem is that Quebec's student unions have not set any goal to achieve. Theirs is a moving target that no government, of any stripe, will be able to hit. It's something I've seen before.
In New Zealand, where I attended university, there is very generous support for those undertaking higher education. As just one example, many students are given a "Student Allowance" of hundreds of dollars a week in cash that can be spent on anything. This money never has to be paid back and often ends up going towards beer.
But even with such generous arrangements, student unions in New Zealand weren't happy so they organized campaigns and successfully pushed the Labour government of the time to introduce caps on tuition fee increases. Next, the student unions called for all student loans to be completely interest free -- a policy the government then campaigned for re-election on and proceeded to implement. Still not content, the unions have now moved on to campaigning for no tuition fees at all, and believe that all previous loans should be completely forgiven. The New Zealand experience shows that when one set of demands is met student unions usually produce a new set right away, often without regard to the cost to taxpayers.
It's easy to think that provincial matters don't affect the rest of the country but all Canadians should keep a close eye on the Quebec election. There's no such thing as a free lunch -- someone always has to pay the bill. In this case, thanks to equalisation transfers, taxpayers all across Canada will be forced to pick up part of the tab.
The shortfall in tuition fees that the Quebec government faces is coming straight out of the wallets of students and workers in other provinces where leaders have already made the tough decision to (or, have students pay their own way and to) have higher fees.
Quebec's student unions should take a hard look at their position. The majority of students just want to study, and the majority of taxpayers just want quality services at a reasonable price. In a real strike, workers risk their incomes and jobs while all that the student protesters have done is put their fellow students' education at risk.
On average, individuals who hold a university degree earn hundreds of thousands of dollars more during their working life than those who don't. It is only fair and reasonable to expect them to contribute towards the cost of that brighter future.
Time for the rest of Canada to stop ripping of students and follow Quebec's lead.
As for student goals, they are not clear because the students are not a unified block. About one third of students went on strike during the last crisis. Of those, about 40%, the members of CLASSE, advocate for free post-secondary education, just like primary or secondary. Of the rest, most want the tuition freeze to continue, with some seeing indexation to cost of living as a reasonable compromise. For those who didn't want to screw up their studies by going on strike, some agree with a tuition hike of some sort, but most would align themselves with the other three viewpoints (free, freeze or indexation).
If we want to evolve as a society, then we need to make education attainable to anyone with the skills and the motivation to succeed.
This is the question that desperately needs answering. Quebec students, to their credit, are demanding their government take a serious look at the problem and find a real solution.
I'd recommend this video: http://live.wsj.com/video/thiel-what-wrong-with-education/107C75A6-9856-4908-8E9B-67C2EF707E2C.html
For fifty years, between 1945 and 1995, it was possible for a student to pay both tuition and room and board with a summer job. Most people over 45 did that.
Now we are entering a new, revolutionary age where that's no longer possible.
We have abandoned the system that built our economy, that supported it at the time of our greatest growth and prosperity.
The Quebec students who march against higher tuition are defending the old Canada, not proposing a new one; you're the one proposing a radical social experiment that could easily undermine the foundations of our economy.
They're the conservatives. Not you.
"Regarding the so-called "too generous" social programs that Quebec can "treat itself to" thanks to Albertans, the Quebec government presented an interesting rebuttal in a brochure accompanying the 2011-2012 budget. According equalization payment calculations, Quebec has a fiscal capacity of $6,088 per capita before equalization and $7,072 after equalization, i.e. a $984 gain in fiscal capacity.
This calculation however does not entirely reflect the average fiscal capacity of provinces because only half of revenues earned from natural resources are taken into account in the formula. In reality, provinces rather collect around $7,436 per capita. Quebec therefore would have to tax its population $364 per capita more to offer services level with the Canadian average. But in fact, the revenue which Quebec actually collects is $8,520 per capita, therefore $1,084 more than the Canadian average. This tax differential reflects the province's decision to offer more public services. It is therefore untrue to claim that Quebec is treating itself to more extensive public services funded by other Canadians: they are funded by higher provincial taxes than elsewhere."
Mr McCaffrey, in a response to a post of mine below, you wrote about "Canadians resenting subsidizing Quebec". As the reference above illustrates, this is not the case.
come clean, your agenda focuses on turning Canadians against one another with the hope they will be open to your anti government, Neo-Liberal agenda.
The really argument is about having once and for all a real public system that is fully public and created and maintained by society as a tool and a means for the further and greater development of our future generations, not as an industry or a company. Education is an investment first and foremost. If on the contrary the educational system is set to make profits and loses it's role as "beacon" of knowledge, a place to exchange and debate, a place in which ideas are harvested and not wallets or corporate interests then the result is fatal: a dysfunctional society is born.But then again speaking logic in world of neo-liberal consensus is a revolutionary act.
But please Mr.Macaffrey don't take the students of Quebec for economical morons... maybe you are the one after all that needs to take an priorities class 101!It's not about economics (as proven above more accessible educational system is the backbone for economical strength) it's about priorities!
It's interesting to see Mr.Mccaffrey that have so much ease and agility to compare Quebec's situation with the rest of Canada and yet see no need to place Canadian median tuition in the international arena.
For exemple in France for public universities and I'm talking not about "Les Grandes Écoles" (the private system) tuition is actually free. Yes Mr.Mccaffrey zero point zero euros. And you can't say that schools such as Dauphine or Paris 6eme are not of International reputation. Equally the post-secondary system in Belgium is merely 865 euros per year. Universities such as the Catholic University of Louvain-La-Neuve or The Free University of Brussels are some of the most innovative in the world. And final illustration to my point in Scandinavian countries education is also free, it's considered the basis of society and not a "merchandise".
Now that your dear argument of the co-relation between quality education and higher educational fees has been deconstructed. I would like to offer a my vision of the only relevant co-relation between Stronger Economy, more "Productive", Heathier Society and an accessible educational system for all.
Fees will have to go up in Quebec to meet rising costs regardless of who wins the election. The only debate is about whether students should pay for some of the increase, or whether the taxpayer should.
Tuition fees are essentially going up in Canada because governments are spending a smaller and smaller percentage of the total cost of higher education, passing most of the shortfall to the students through tuition hikes.
As for the debate, it's a little larger than that. We can ask if post-secondary students should pay at all. We can even think of paying them to go to school so they don't have to work while they're studying. We could argue that students have to make some form of contribution to their education. If so, how much? Should whatever tuition scheme we have allow for family income? Perhaps we should ever wonder if the State should be in the education system at all, as some would have it. I thinks this goes a little beyond just deciding who pays for an increase, students or taxpayers.
Let's take once again the exemple of France, the French population is one of the most educated and thus most productive in (economical terms) in the world. The same goes for Germany and the Scandinavian countries in general. On the contrary in Greece, Portugal, Italy and Ireland all countries that have been very badly hit by the economic crisis since the mid 1980's the educational systems of these countries have become more privatized = higher tuition.
The really argument is about having once and for all a real public system that is fully public and created and maintained by society as a tool and a means for the further and greater development of our future generations, not as an industry or a company. Education is an investment first and foremost. If on the contrary the educational system is set to make profits and loses it's role as "beacon" of knowledge, a place to exchange and debate, a place in which ideas are harvested and not wallets or corporate interests then the result is fatal: a dysfunctional society is born.
But then again speaking logic in world of neo-liberal consensus is a revolutionary act. But please Mr.Macaffrey don't take the students of Quebec for economical morons... maybe you are the one after all that needs to take an priorities class 101!
It's not about economics (as proven above more accessible educational system is the backbone for economical strength) it's about priorities!
The Huffington Post is a place to exchange and debate, yet they still manage to make a profit too.
Might be better to have them review grade three arithmetic.
Oh, wait, there is a magic money tree, over there by that unicorn!
And while you harp on as you will, students in Quebec & across Canada will be busy trying to stop the increase in tuition fees across the board.
The other missing point is that 30 years ago it was possible to work through the summer, and an additional shift here and there, to pay your way through university. That is no longer the case. Many of the students finishing with an honours have also a full time job and a crippling debts. Because even they are no longer receiving scholarships.
If equalization payments were reformed or removed, then yes Quebec should be free to do whatever it wants without interference from other provinces. While the rest of Canada is paying, I think it's reasonable to allow them some influence in where their money goes - or at least be able to comment on it!
But we're debating whether other people who don't want to fund subsidised education in Quebec should be forced to.
No individual can predict the value of their own education, so individually, borrowing to study is a bad bet. But collectively, overall, it is a stupendously profitable investment, easily the best investment society can make. A bit better than F-35s, in fact.
Don't like roads? Guess you shoudn't have to pay for them either. Airports? Might not be there when you need them. Hospitals? I don't like paying for them either.
Public goods. Education is one of them.
The ease of student loans and handouts has increased the money supply aimed at education so education costs have been inflated.
More money chasing education means higher prices.