If you would like to volunteer and join the effort, please contact us at the above email before embarking on any translation work, in order to avoid any redundancies. We cannot accept translations that have not been cleared with us first.
For more useful English-language sources on the conflict, see:
Lisa-Marie Gervais September 12, 2012
Since 1990, the cost of studies in Canada has increased three times more quickly than inflation.
Far from following inflation, the cost of studies has taken off rather sharply everywhere in Canada in the last decade, making university less and less affordable reports a new study from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA). Since 1990, the cost of undergraduate university, including tuition and related costs, has increased by 6.2% annually, that is to say three times faster than inflation. And if the trend continues, it will increase by nearly 18% in four years.
In the ranking of provinces where study is more costly, Quebec could maintain it’s position at ninth or tenth, when the PQ government who will cancel the tuition increase rather than increase it, will take power. With a bill for $ 4472 in 2015 to 2016, it would be found however in eighth position before Manitoba and Newfoundland and Labrador, if the defeated Liberal government’s plan was implemented. With the costs of $ 9,231 in 2015 to 2016, Ontario is the least affordable province.
Erika Shaker, co-author of the study recognizes that Quebec has always had the lowest tuition- and the lowest debt, which averages $15,000, against $27,000 on average in Canada – even if Newfoundland and Labrador win the prize for affordability when counting the fees. She believes however, that even in the scenario of the PQ government, “deliberate actions should be taken to prove that the real intention of the government is to make studies more affordable,” she told le Devoir.
Marie-Andrée Chouinard September 7, 2012
Original French text: http://www.ledevoir.com/societe/education/358624/obstacles-a-surmonter
Unsigned article July 5, 2012
The Charest government is saving a big surprise for students thinking of resuming the strike in August. Wednesday he council of ministers ratified modifications to student financial aid and tuition fees for the fall.
The council of ministers ratified the Regulation modifying the regulation on student financial aid (Règlement modifiant le Règlement sur l’aide financière aux etudes). It takes up the new measures announced Minister Michelle Courchesne on the 5th and 27th of April.
Jean-Michel Landry, Berkeley PhD June 15, 2012
Original French Text: http://www.ledevoir.com/societe/education/352504/la-part-de-l-etudiant
After three months of protests, an incalculable number of marches and as many debates, we would be tempted to believe that, on higher learning and its financing, everything has been said. But at the heart of this vast debate, there lies a black hole, an opaque element. This opaque element is what we have called the students’ “fair share.” So what is exactly this famous “fair share?”
We know that when the supporters of the tuition hikes invite the students to “do their share”, they hope to see them cover a larger part of the cost of education. To this, the hikes’ opponents answer that student “will fully do their share” by contributing to the financing of the university network as soon as they will obtain a job and dispose of, through this, a taxable income.
Bertrand Gagnon – Retired economist at the Institut de la statistique du Québec
June 4 2012
Original French Text: http://www.ledevoir.com/politique/quebec/351571/des-sondages-contradictoires
Since the beginning of the conflict, the government’s strategy seems to have been to believe that there was nothing to negotiate, since it had the support of the majority of the population. But did 68% of the population really support the government? One has reason to doubt.
In February, at the beginning of the student conflict, the polls indicated that a strong majority was in favour of tuition increases—68% for versus 32% against. But this lacked nuance because only two choices were possible: tuition increase or tuition freeze.
There were four options put forward in the CROP/Radio Canada poll last May 25th. The abolition of tuition fees received 11% support, tuition freeze 13%, the cost of living increase 45%, and the full increase 27%. 72% of the population was in favour of an increase of tuition fees, but the majority preferred a moderate cost of living increase to the rapid increase proposed by the government.
To sum up, 27% were in support of the government (rapid increase) and 69% opposed (free, frozen or moderately increased tuition). 4% of those polled were unsure or did not answer.
Anouk Brière-Godbout May 28, 2012
Original French Text: http://www.ledevoir.com/societe/education/351153/les-parents-etudiants-sacrifies
In its electorally-flavoured video launched during the now infamous Victoriaville convention, the Liberal Party presents itself as the champion of Quebec families. The province has become a paradise for families thanks to the measures it has taken, it says, and spends almost quarter of the video listing them. It seems, however, that student parents have been given a much lower priority it its tuition fee proposals. The government states that it will make up the increased costs for the less fortunate by an increase in bursary programs. But this is not the case for all students. Parents who are students will be directly penalised by this increase in grants. This may seem contradictory, until one looks at the taxation impacts. The Institut de recherche et d’information socio-économiques (IRIS) has demonstrated that several benefits paid out to student parents will be decreased because student bursaries are taken into account in the calculation of these benefits.
Therefore, a low-income student parent who receives $8000 in grants before the tuition hike will receive $9778 after the hike, the difference being intended to offset the increased tuition. However, this will decrease his or her benefits by $443.96. Ultimately, the effective increased cost to this student parent will be $644.26. The Charest government does everything it can to win the votes of middle-income families, but it sacrifices student parents in its so-called concessions. In fact, it penalizes all low-income students who will also be impacted by a decrease in certain credits. This is one example, there is certainly more. I am not a tax expert; no solution is simple when taxation enters the equation.
Translated from the original French by Translating the printemps érable.
*Translating the printemps érable is a volunteer collective attempting to balance the English media’s extremely poor coverage of the student conflict in Québec by translating media that has been published in French into English. These are amateur translations; we have done our best to translate these pieces fairly and coherently, but the final texts may still leave something to be desired. If you find any important errors in any of these texts, we would be very grateful if you would share them with us at firstname.lastname@example.org. Please read and distribute these texts in the spirit in which they were intended; that of solidarity and the sharing of information.
Guillaume Marois, PhD candidate in Demographics at the INRS May 25, 2012
Addressing the social crisis that is currently taking place in Quebec, Maclean’s magazine reported that “a group of entitled students went to war and shut down an entire province. Over 325$.” The green squares and the government are attempting to minimize the proposed tuition hike, maintaining that it only represents a dollar a day, even only 50¢ a day after the government’s offer to span the hike over 7 years instead of 5. That wouldn’t even represent the cost of a coffee, implying that everyone can absorb this decreed hike without difficulty.
I’ve always found it dishonest to divide the hike over a period of a year or a day. It is in essence a dubious numerical manipulation, because the hike, when divided annually or daily, is cumulative. In comparison with the initial cost, the increase of 325$ of the first year becomes 650$ the following year, 975$ the third year, and so on. To pretend as though it’s merely 325$ is only true for the first year. In the end, at the fifth year, the hike is not 325$ per year, but rather 1625$. By the same token, the 1$/day of the first year becomes 5$/day after five years…sacrificing a coffee becomes sacrificing a meal. When put this way, it becomes a lot less obvious for everyone to take on.