Saturday, June 16, 2012

Why the silence on Ottawa’s role in the Quebec student strike?


The following article draws attention to an important issue that has been largely overlooked in the Quebec student strike.

The author, Pierre Graveline, is a well-known journalist, editor and publisher, and is currently the executive director of the Fondation Lionel-Groulx. A former official with the Quebec teachers union, he is the author of a book on the history of education and teacher unionism in Quebec.

I have translated this article from the Quebec on-line newspaper L’aut’journal.

Richard Fidler

* * *

The strange disappearance of the Canadian

state from the debate on the student strike

by Pierre Graveline

June 12, 2012

For months now this crisis has preoccupied everyone in Quebec, filled the media coverage and dominated the debates in the National Assembly, while the international media ponder “the Quebec spring” and demonstrations of support are held from Paris to New York, from the Cannes film festival to the streets of Hollywood.

Not a single statement by the Canadian prime minister or any of his ministers! Not a single allusion to the conflict by Bob Rae and the federal Liberals! No comment by Thomas Mulcair and the NDP MPs — claiming to represent the Quebec left but too busy playing ostrich, burying their heads in the Alberta tar sands! And not a single speech by the Bloc québécois on this topic!

Nor has there been a single reference to the federal government by Jean Charest or any of his ministers during this crisis, and not a single word that might suggest that the Canadian government has some responsibility in this crisis from Pauline Marois, François Legault, Amir Khadir or Jean-Martin Aussant![1]

In the demonstrations, not a sign or a slogan addressed to the Canadian state or the federal government! Not a single Canadian flag, but a myriad of flags of Quebec or even of the Patriotes!

Among the various protagonists — the university rectors, CEGEP[2] principals, Chambers of Commerce, student associations, the trade union movement, commentators and analysts alike, with very rare exceptions — the same deafening silence, the same collective amnesia!

The Canadian state has disappeared from the radar screens! Sent to another, distant galaxy! Vanished into thin air!

Up to a certain point, we can rejoice at this situation.

What an eloquent testimony to the profound sense of identification of our fellow citizens with the Quebec nation! Marginal at the beginning of the Quiet Revolution, a minority sentiment at the time of the 1980 referendum, and barely a majority in 1995, this feeling of identification has now attained the level of 70% among Francophones, 77% among those aged 18-24 and, clearly, is close to 100% among the demonstrators!

This growing affinity with the Québécois national identity naturally leads us to consider the Quebec state as our only national state, the one to which everyone turns when the time comes to make the decisive choices for our future.

When we debate the financial crisis of our universities, whether we are analyzing the causes or imagining solutions, it no longer occurs to anyone, it seems, to turn, if only for a moment, to the Canadian state.

A heartening illustration of the strengthening of our national identity, to be sure, but also testimony, I fear, to the political dead-end into which Quebec has retreated, of our collective inability to think of ourselves as free citizens of a nation with full control over all its powers and all its resources. And, I note with sorrow, a tragic testimony to the provincialist blinkers of our parties and our so-called “sovereigntist” leaders.

For the Canadian state, like it or not, still exists, in reality stronger than ever. In education, as in all areas, its decisions weigh heavily. They limit, restrain, determine our freedom to make choices.

What is the source of the under-funding of our university system? Everyone makes as if they forget it, but this under-funding originates in the Canadian government’s unilateral decision, made in 1994-95, to reduce by 50% the federal transfers to the provinces for post-secondary education.

For years, the university rectors attributed the under-funding of their institutions to this federal decision and tried to reverse it. Just a few years ago, we saw the formation of a common front of the universities, student associations and the government of Quebec around this issue.

But, observing the lack of fighting spirit of the Charest government, and concluding that the coming to power of the Conservatives deprived them of any hope in this regard, the rectors of the Quebec universities ultimately decided to adopt the same strategy as the Canadian universities: to pass on the largest possible share of the bill to the students and, to justify this action, to blame them for the under-funding.

And everyone, from the premier to the editorial writers, chimed in with this new refrain.

And so it was that we forgot the responsibility of the Canadian government, although its cutbacks in post-secondary education amount to a loss of income of $800 million per year for Quebec, according to the conservative estimates of the Quebec Finance ministry.

With which we could not only fulfil the needs of the universities, but make a significant step toward free education by reducing by $200 million the tuition fees and the other costs they are asking the students to bear.

Throughout the four months of the current crisis, not a single so-called sovereigntist leader has come forward to remind the Québécois of this “detail.”

In the Canadian government’s strategy rooms they must literally be doubled over laughing.

And here we Québécois are, tearing ourselves apart for four months over the $250 million tuition fee increase that our government wants to impose on the students, and looking for “provincial” solutions to the conflict. Could the increase be spread over seven years, ten years, why not 15 years? Or could we cut into this or that tax credit, even — God forbid! — increase taxes on the middle class, or what have you?

Locked into our provincialism, not only do we forget the responsibility of the Canadian government in the origin of the crisis, but in our desperate search for solutions to the crisis we don’t even consider the dues and taxes we pay to that government!

What does the $250 million increase we demand from our students represent in financing our universities?

Well, it amounts to barely one-half of one percent of the $50 billion we pay each year, Quebec citizens and businesses, to the Canadian government and over which, as an impotent minority, we have no say.

Fifty billion dollars, of which $4.5 billion constitutes Quebec’s contribution to the $21 billion that the Canadian government is spending, this year alone, on its military budget, a budget that is proportionally higher today than it was during the Cold War, a budget that ranks 12th in the world, a budget that is ten times the budget allocated to the environment, a budget that provides for opening seven Canadian military bases abroad, a budget that provides for the purchase of 65 F-35 planes at a cost of $462 million each, an expansionist military budget that two-thirds of the Québécois, according to all the opinion polls, disapprove.

Let’s think about this for a moment. The cost of purchasing just two F-35s amounts to what is needed to institute free tuition throughout the Quebec university system.

There is no need, therefore, to increase taxes on the middle class to establish, if not free tuition, at least a moratorium on the increase in fees. The problem is absolutely not a problem of collective financial resources, but a problem of political choices in the use of the taxes levied in Quebec.

Yet, with very few exceptions, such as an article signed by Gilbert Paquette and some other members of the IPSO[3] in Le Devoir, and a demonstration held by the Cap sur l’indépendance network — two actions that unfortunately had little follow-up — not a single leader of the so-called sovereigntist parties has been found to raise this essential dimension of the social crisis we are experiencing.

Provincialist blinkers, I said, but also short-sighted electoralism. Elections are coming: the important thing, right, is to criticize Jean Charest in order to win some votes.

And that is how we are missing a wonderful opportunity to make the link between the social crisis we are going through and the national question, to expand the horizons of our democratic debates, to raise the national consciousness of our people and to advance on the road to our political independence.

So goes life in our “belle province,” from the Latin provincia which signifies, I must regretfully recall, “land of the conquered.”

[1] Respectively, leaders of the Parti Québécois, Coalition Avenir Québec, Québec solidaire, and Option nationale.

[2] Collèges d’enseignement générale et professionelle, institutions mid-way between high school and university.

[3] Les Intellectuels pour la souveraineté – Intellectuals for sovereignty, a group of academics and journalists who aim to stimulate debate on the national question and the sovereigntist option. For the article, see Grève étudiante - Et la richesse sociale du diplôme?

Thursday, June 7, 2012

Where next for the Quebec mobilizations? Debate opens on strategic perspectives

Despite massive mobilizations throughout Quebec in opposition to Law 78 and the Charest government, the student struggle is once again at an impasse.

At the end of May, the government terminated the latest round of negotiations with the four college and university student associations without offering any concessions on the students’ key demands: for repeal of the tuition fee increases and repeal of its “bludgeon law” aimed at smashing student unionism in the province.

The student negotiators had bent over backwards to find some acceptable compromise. They agreed not to discuss Law 78 pending an agreement on the fees. They put aside the proposal of the CLASSE, the most militant student group,[1] that a tax on banks be substituted for the fee increase, proposing instead that the funds in question be found through increasing the existing education savings program. All to no avail.

Meanwhile, mounting public opposition to Law 78 brought new forces into the struggle. On May 22, hundreds of thousands marched once more in the streets of Montréal and other cities in support of the students and against the law. The nightly demonstrations, which began in late April when the government ended its initial bargaining session with the students, continued. And for the first time they began to draw in masses of non-student participants, attracting entire families who spontaneously descended into neighbourhood streets banging pots and pans (casseroles) in angry yet exuberant displays of opposition to the Liberal government.

Pierre Beaudet has provided a vivid description of one such demonstration in his neighborhood: “Samedi soir sur la rue Fleury.” In a few areas, the casseroles participants have initiated attempts to create more permanent structures. Here (in French) is an interesting account of one such effort.

Fearing to use the full panoply of measures under the bludgeon Law 78 against these massive and diverse demonstrations, the cops have resorted to selective repression. They declare the demonstrations illegal under the law, but often “tolerate” them. In some instances, however, they have arbitrarily engaged in mass arrests even in the absence of any violence by the demonstrators. Those arrested are mostly charged under traffic control laws, which bring heavy fines. So far, however, no charges have been laid under Law 78. The total of those arrested since the student strike began in mid-February is now somewhere close to 3,000.

On the night of June 5, police in Quebec City “kettled” one such demonstration after declaring it illegal, arrested and handcuffed more than 60 persons, including Amir Khadir, the Québec solidaire member of the National Assembly, and charged them under the highway traffic code with obstructing the streets. In a news conference the next day, Khadir strongly defended peaceful, non-violent civil disobedience of Law 78. “When a law is immoral, when a law is unjust, there is a law of conscience that must be obeyed,” he said. It was his responsibility to “accompany my people” in such actions, Khadir said, citing Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King as his “models.”

The student associations have reacted in differing ways to the deadlock with the government. The FECQ and FEUQ, which represent a minority of the students who struck the campuses, as well as the non-striking TCEQ, [2] appear to have limited their action against Law 78 to court challenges, although such proceedings may not reach a final conclusion before the law expires in June 2013.

The CLASSE, at its annual congress early this month, adopted a three-part action plan for the coming period: (1) to sponsor mass national demonstrations on June 22 and July 22; (2) to participate in an action on July 13 organized by a broad coalition against user fees and privatization of public services; and (3) to prepare a broad mobilization this fall, including a discussion of the perspectives for a “social strike” at the end of the summer vacation period. Together with the other student associations, CLASSE members will also leaflet various entertainment events during the summer to help educate the public on the issues in their struggle.

A Legal Defense Fund, with a bilingual web site, has also been organized to raise money for the defense of those arrested in the student demonstrations in recent months. And the CLASSE has mounted a campaign, also with a bilingual web site, to raise funds to help it continue the struggle in the coming months.

The summer will be a difficult period for the movement, confronted by the government’s hard-line resistance, the continuing repression and threats, the legislated closure of the campuses at least until mid-August, and the need for many students to find summer jobs… to help finance their tuition fees.

Mass action vs. electoralism

A new challenge to the students and their supporters is posed in a strategic debate now developing in nationalist and progressive circles. Essentially, it involves a clash between those who want to put the student struggle on ice in order to build an electoral coalition behind the Parti québécois, and the militants who argue that the future of the movement lies primarily in the development of mass action in the extra-parliamentary arena. In recent days this debate has gone public, with opposing polemics in the radical and mass media.

An initial round was fired in the daily Le Devoir on June 5 in an op-ed piece by Pierre Curzi, a dissident péquiste who (together with a few other MNAs) left the PQ parliamentary caucus last year to sit as an independent, primarily in protest against PQ leader Pauline Marois’ reluctance to steer the party toward a new referendum on Quebec sovereignty.

Curzi’s “call to the nation,” as he titled it, lamented the PQ’s loss of support to both its right and its left, and the growing development of a “left-right axis” in Quebec politics. The rightists, now assembled in the Coalition avenir Québec, are objectively allied with the federalist Liberals (the PLQ) on the national question. On the left is the pro-independence Québec solidaire, which is now registering between 6 and 10 percentage points in opinion polls. This, in Curzi’s view, was a major problem: “With the first-past-the-post ballot, in one round, the rise in popularity of QS works directly to the advantage of the PLQ” as QS appropriates a section of the pro-sovereignty vote traditionally hegemonized by the PQ. Curzi failed to mention that the undemocratic under-representation of both PQ and QS votes in legislative seats was largely the fault of the PQ, which in its 18 years in government never implemented its promise to institute some form of proportional representation.

A related problem, said Curzi, is the mounting rate of abstention in the electorate, which works to the disadvantage of the PQ as the Liberals have a faithful electorate in the Anglophone and ethnic populations that guarantees them about 40 seats in the 125-seat legislature. (Here, too, Curzi failed to note the possible connection between the growing class divide and the rise in abstention in elections, where the alternatives to the neoliberal consensus of the major parties have been weak or non-existent.)

The solution, he argued, lies in the formation of a common front of the PQ, QS and a small pro-sovereignty party, Option nationale, headed by former PQ dissident Jean-Martin Aussant. This front would organize primaries in each riding to choose the common candidate with the best chance of election. Curzi admitted that in most cases the péquiste would be chosen. But he was willing to contemplate a few exceptions for leaders of the other parties and perhaps independents like himself. Above all, however, QS president Françoise David, who is running in Gouin riding against a sitting PQ member, would have to desist, although possibly she might manage to be chosen in another riding.

The program of this supposed coalition? Obviously there could be no demand opposed by the PQ, the dominant component of the alliance. So Curzi thought that on the subject at the heart of the current political crisis it would be sufficient to oppose “the drastic increase in student fees.” After all, the PQ does not support even the students’ minimum demand for a freeze on fees, still less free tuition, and proposes only a brief moratorium on the increase followed later by indexation of fees.

Curzi’s proposal — which was flatly rejected the next day by PQ leader Marois — was supplemented by an opinion piece published in the on-line edition of Le Devoir, also on June 5, under the by-lines of Marc Laviolette and Pierre Dubuc, leaders of SPQ Libre,[3] a small caucus of left supporters of the PQ. They pointed to growing speculation that Charest might call a snap election in the midst of the current social crisis, counting on the support of a majority of voters hostile or indifferent to the students’ demands, to re-elect his government.

The SPQ Libre authors then pointed to what they consider the major problem: the deepening social mobilization by the students and their supporters.“We have all seen the immense banners in the demonstrations calling for a ‘social strike.’ But at this point this would be a tremendous error. It would simply facilitate the re-election of the Liberal party.” Charest will win on the theme that voters have to choose between “the street and the government.”

They pointed to some historical precedents. Charles de Gaulle had been re-elected in the wake of the May 1968 revolt in France. (In fact, he resigned a few months later when defeated in his referendum on reform of institutions.) Similarly, after the 1968-69 student strike Liberal leader Robert Bourassa had been elected in 1970 to restore order, and re-elected in 1973 “after the October [1970] crisis” (they might have added, after the 1972 labour upsurge and radicalization). Clearly, they implied, these social mobilizations do more harm than good when it comes to an electoral strategy for winning office.

“The struggle is political and will be played out in the electoral arena,” argued Laviolette and Dubuc. “So we must avoid letting the student conflict obscure the record of the Charest government. We must build a broad coalition around the Parti québécois on the theme: ‘Charest divides, the PQ unites!’”

To this effect, the unions in particular should mobilize their members to get out the vote for the PQ. And Québec solidaire should reach an agreement with the PQ under which QS would campaign for the PQ in ridings identified as “winnable” by the latter. Furthermore, this “electoral coalition” should be expanded to include not only Option nationale but all the student, environmental, popular and other organizations that oppose the policies of the Charest government. And their leaders should be invited to run for the PQ. As for Québec solidaire, a newly elected PQ government might offer a cabinet seat to QS leaders “Amir Khadir and/or Françoise David, if they managed to get elected of course.”

It must be said that on their face some of these proposals are laughably impractical. As Le Devoir political columnist Michel David cynically commented, “it is totally unrealistic to think of a ‘coalition government’ that would include representatives of QS…. With Amir Khadir in her cabinet, Pauline Marois would go crazy within two days.” Indeed, the PQ cannot possibly unite the opposition to the Liberal government.

However, it is undeniable that the prospect of Charest’s re-election has panicked many nationalists and social-liberal progressives, prompting the more pessimistic like the SPQ Libre leaders into contemplating possible electoralist alternatives. And some members of Québec solidaire — how many cannot be ascertained at this point — may be susceptible to the idea of some sort of electoral alliance with the PQ, notwithstanding Marois’s current opposition. These pressures on QS are destined to mount exponentially in the coming months. Although the party members have rejected analogous proposals in the past, most notably at its April 2011 convention, the polarization in Quebec politics produced by the students’ magnificent strike movement has created new challenges on the electoral front as well.

Maintaining and expanding the mass movement

These developing debates are the subject of several articles in the current issue of the on-line journal Presse-toi à gauche, which is editorially sympathetic to Québec solidaire. In a notable contribution, entitled (free translation) “The challenges of Law 78: The resistance must continue!,” Benoit Renaud, a former national secretary of QS, addresses the strategic dilemmas facing the student movement and directly confronts the issue of their impact on electoral politics.

Law 78, he writes, “is an unprecedented attack on the student movement and a completely arbitrary and unjustified assault on the democratic rights of the population as a whole.” It “challenges the democratic forces in Quebec society to unite to resist the law itself but also to reflect collectively on how to reverse the offensive. Otherwise, this setback, which is ostensibly temporary, could prepare the ground for some future attacks and defeats from which it will be increasingly difficult to recover.”

The daily demonstrations and the casseroles movement have confirmed the existence of significant opposition to the special law and, to a lesser extent, popular support for the students, Renaud notes. But this is far from universal. The focus must remain on the need to build mass support in defense of the students and their demands, he argues. The stakes are huge:

“It will be very hard for the student associations to defy such legislation. The sanctions against the organizations and their leaders are very harsh. The loss of one session’s dues per day of strike — or even an attempted strike — could handicap the most militant student associations in Quebec for many years. Legal challenges of the law and the various penalties it entails could seriously undermine the ability of the organizations to mobilize students against future attacks.”

“The FEUQ and the FECQ seem to have already abandoned the idea of defying the law in order to concentrate on the legal challenge. But the CLASSE’s declared intention remains to be spelled out and demonstrated in practice. What local associations will be prepared to take such risks starting in August, in a strike movement that is probably confined to a small minority? Should a new threshold level of participation be determined for this phase of the mobilization? If some associations decide to move ahead in testing the law, will the rest of the student movement and its allies be prepared to share the costs and support this vanguard?

“If the largest student mobilization in the history of Quebec were to end in the legal denial of the right to strike and the demolition of the most militant organizations, as well as the maintenance of the tuition fee increase, there could be a major demoralization leading to passivity for the majority and ultra-radicalism for a small and increasingly criminalized minority. The movement could take a decade to recover.

“In other words, we must develop a strategy to win on the basic question of the tuition fees, the only true test of the relationship of forces and the best way in which to preserve the student movement’s capacity for action. To do this, we must strengthen solidarity, protect the student organizations and their leaderships, expand the mobilization and support over the issue of the fees, and ultimately win the debate over the best means of making education accessible to all….”

Although this is the first time a sweeping emergency law has been aimed at the student movement, Renaud notes, “the labour movement has a long experience in this regard,” especially in the public sector. “In addition to the Labour Code and the Essential Services Act, both of which already severely limit its exercise, the government arsenal includes special laws — adopted or threatened — to deny, for all intents and purposes, the right to strike for the public sector as a whole.” More recently, the Tory government in Ottawa has used its parliamentary majority to break strikes by workers at Canada Post, Air Canada and Canadian Pacific.

With few exceptions, the unions have failed to mount successful struggles in their defense, relying largely on court challenges, says Renaud. A different approach is needed.

“Law 78 demonstrates to us the need to retake the initiative and defend — by methods going beyond the strict limits of legality, if necessary — our fundamental collective rights, including the right to strike. The Charest government, through its actions, is attempting to take us back to the 1950s in terms of social rights. Isn’t it time to go back to the methods of struggle of the 1950s and to draw our inspiration from the determination of a Madeleine Parent or a Michel Chartrand?

“In 1972 FTQ president Louis Laberge characterized the special law against the [public sector] Common Front as fascist and urged his members to defy it. The jailing of Laberge, Charbonneau and Pépin [the latter two leaders of the CEQ and CSN centrals] provoked a wave of “illegal” strikes in the private sector. It is this — a widening of the struggle rather than its narrowing — that constitutes the only valid response to abuse of power. That was what enabled the union movement to make some gains that year and in the following two rounds of bargaining. The 1972 special law had been broken by the general strike in May.”

Renaud then turns to more contemporary examples.

“Calls for a political general strike or ‘social strike’ began to be heard in the first months of the Charest regime, in response to a series of anti-union laws adopted at the end of 2003. Resolutions along these lines were adopted by many organizations, but they did not lead to concrete operations of organization and preparation. This idea has come up again in the student conflict. A social strike is an action often used in Europe to challenge austerity measures. The development of a concrete action plan for holding such a strike, aimed at repeal of Law 78, would be a needed complement to the legal challenges and a means of re-establishing the relationship of forces in favour of the student movement and, by extension, all of the social movements.

“There is also talk in some circles of the idea of an Estates General of the social movements. Indeed, the employers’ attacks are aimed not only at unionists and college and university students. It is the 99% of the population who do not benefit from the system who are targeted, especially by the social and environmental policies. The need for unity of the movements in the face of governments in Quebec City and Ottawa determined to undermine our social gains and make us pay for the costs of the economic crisis certainly warrants working together and with a new range of methods, including the social strike, irrespective of who wins the next elections. Hence we must continue to demonstrate throughout the summer. If the purpose of Law 78 was to restore the social peace that is so dear to business people, mayors and the premier, the lack of social peace will demonstrate the failure of the law and end up undermining the credibility of the government. Who knows, they might even find the road to genuine negotiation.”

Québec solidaire, a tribune for the student cause?

Renaud then turns to the appeals for a common electoral front of the left and social movements with the Parti québécois. He acknowledges the dilemma we face in today’s conditions, given the profoundly undemocratic electoral system and the absence of a “credible governmental alternative or an effective option for defeating” the Liberals or CAQ in many ridings. But is the election of a PQ government our only recourse, he asks.

“[T]there is a huge problem with this approach. The bosses’ offensive, of which Law 78 is the most egregious and brutal expression up to now, was begun by the Parti québécois at the time when Marois began her political career as Minister of Poverty. PQ governments adopted especially vicious bludgeon laws against the teachers in 1982 and the nurses in 1999.

“Not surprisingly, the PQ’s attitude in the student conflict has also been full of ambiguities. Ms. Marois came out against the increase… for the time being, calling for yet another forum to discuss the funding of the universities, and then for indexing fees to inflation. She declared her opposition to the use of injunctions… while calling on the students to abide by them scrupulously. And now her party promises to repeal Law 78… but asks that we obey it without exception in the meantime.”

A more comprehensive critical review of the PQ record both in and out of office is offered in an accompanying article by Bernard Rioux in PTàG answering the arguments of the SPQ Libre leaders. “Between 1994 and 2003,” the PQ’s last term in office, “this social liberal party now in opposition adopted and implemented neoliberal policies.” A PQ government would “be led… to follow the same paths as the Liberal government that preceded it….” The principal danger today, he argues, “is the weakening of the autonomy of the social movements in relation to a party that defends the interests of the ruling oligarchy, not the majority.”

Benoit Renaud notes the futility of a strategy based on support of the PQ:

“The social movements cannot rely on an ally with such a troubled history and such an obvious propensity to try to sit on the fence. The fact is that the construction of a left alternative rooted in the social struggles is an unavoidable task in any strategy aimed at rolling back the offensive and putting such notions as social justice, the fight against poverty, environmental protection, equal rights, feminism, etc. back on the agenda.”

As to “strategic voting,” even its supporters must concede that “in most ridings the question of incidental support to the PQ to avoid a PLQ or CAQ victory will not even be posed.

“Many ridings are strongholds of one party or another. There will be several battles between the PLQ and the CAQ. Several ridings are now winnable for Québec solidaire. There will be some cases where strategic voting may an issue. But even in these situations a fair section of the electorate will prefer to abstain if there is no credible progressive alternative to voting PQ.”

Renaud concludes on a modestly optimistic note:

“[I]n the next National Assembly a respectable contingent of QS members could make a big difference, irrespective of the distribution of the other seats. The experience over three and a half years with a single QS member should suffice to show that. And if the PQ forms the next government, it will be necessary to continue to mobilize against policies in substantial continuity with those of the previous regime, even if the style, the pace and the discourse may change. In this context, each vote obtained by Québec solidaire in the election will be a further political signal that the resistance will be there.”

Clearly, an important debate that is only beginning.

Richard Fidler, June 7, 2012


Some further reading on the mobilization in Quebec:

In English:

Peter Hallward, “The Threat of Quebec’s Good Example,”

“The extraordinary student mobilization in Quebec has already sustained the longest and largest student strike in the history of North America, and it has already organized the single biggest act of civil disobedience in Canadian history. It is now rapidly growing into one of the most powerful and inventive anti-austerity campaigns anywhere in the world.

“Every situation is different, of course, and Quebec's students draw on a distinctive history of social and political struggle, one rooted in the 1960s ‘Quiet Revolution’ and several subsequent and eye-opening campaigns for free or low-cost higher education. Support for the provincial government that opposes them, moreover, has been undermined in recent years by allegations of corruption and bribery. Nevertheless, those of us fighting against cuts and fees in other parts of the world have much to learn from the way the campaign has been organized and sustained. It's high time that education activists in the UK, in particular, started to pay the Quebecois the highest compliment: when in doubt, imitate!”

Xavier Lafrance and Alan Sears, “Red Square, Everywhere: With Quebec Student Strikers, Against Repression,”

“The demand for quality, accessible and democratic public education was connected to Quebecois struggles for national self-determination and French-language rights. The English-language education system in Quebec was at the time far more extensive and much better funded than the French-language system. The idea of quality, accessible French-language education was part of a broader agenda for liberation.

“The student strike also drew strength from the rising wave of labour militancy sweeping Quebec in the later 1960s and early 1970s. Quebec students also consciously learned from the model of the French student movement dating back to the Charte de Grenoble in 1946, which asserts that student are intellectual workers with distinct and common material interests (for example, for quality, accessible and democratic education), who have the collective power and responsibility to fight for social justice. The commitment to student unionism modelled on workplace trade unionism represents an orientation to collective strength through organization.

“Militant activism, then, has played an important role in forming the Quebec student movement, so that general membership meetings and mobilization committees are written into the bylaws of many local student unions. The demand for free education also has a long history in Quebec. Tuition was basically frozen after the 1968 strike until 1990 through a series of campaigns that included general strikes. Though there was a significant fee hike in the early 1990s, Quebec students have continued to mobilize effectively, and as a result they pay considerably less tuition than in the rest of North America. The history of this movement also means that the idea that education is a public service with an important social role and not a product for sale on the market has considerable currency in Quebec society.”

Interview with CLASSE activists Guillaume Legault and Guillaume Vézina,

See also the blog of Roger Annis, “A Socialist in Canada” for day-to-day coverage of events and republication of some corporate media reactions to the struggle,

In French:

Christian Laval, “La formidable grève des étudiants québécois,” a view from France:

“La décision du gouvernement Charest d’augmenter de 75 % les frais d’inscription ne sont, au dire même des responsables politiques, qu’une mesure de rattrapage par rapport à la norme établie en Amérique du Nord. Or, ce modèle défendu dans les hauts lieux de la pensée dominante, depuis l’OCDE jusqu’à la Commission européenne, commence à prendre l’eau. Cette décision survient en effet à un moment où, dans le monde entier, les révoltes contre le modèle néolibéral d’enseignement supérieur se multiplient. Que l’on songe à la grève des étudiants anglais à l’hiver 2010 ou à celle des étudiants chiliens au printemps et en été 2011.

“Ces luttes ont pour trait ne pas rester confinées au seul monde de l’enseignement. L’alourdissement des charges pesant sur les familles et les étudiants vient frapper les couches sociales les moins favorisées mais aussi une masse croissance de membres des classes moyennes en voie d’appauvrissement. La situation est particulièrement dramatique en Europe. Les pays les plus frappés par les conséquences de la crise financière sur les budgets publics, de l’Irlande à la Grèce en passant par l’Italie et l’Espagne, ont tous eu recours à l’augmentation des frais d’inscription qui encourage mécaniquement l’endettement privé. Et ceci à un moment où les tensions sociales en Europe se font sentir de plus en plus fortement du fait des politiques d’austérité qui aggravent les conditions de vie et détruisent l’emploi.

“Les luttes étudiantes contiennent donc un potentiel de contestation de l’ordre néolibéral très puissant, capable d’entraîner de larges couches de la population et de s’élargir à toutes les conséquences des politiques néolibérales, comme on l’a vu au Chili ces derniers mois.”

Louis Gill, “La lutte étudiante québécoise expliquée aux européens,”

“Le mouvement de grève a manifesté une extraordinaire maturité politique et une rare détermination dans la défense de la volonté de changer les choses. Il a fait apparaître de manière percutante l’arrogance et le caractère rétrograde d’une clique au pouvoir qui est prête à tout pour préserver ses privilèges et ses valeurs désuètes. Il a démontré un immense talent et une remarquable créativité en liant à l’action militante l’art vivant de la résistance. On l’a vu sur les banderoles, les affiches, les pancartes, les costumes, les maquillages, voire par le dénuement partiel de certaines participantes aux seins peints d’un simple carré rouge dans les manifestations, mais aussi par le théâtre, la parodie et la chanson. …

“La résistance étudiante s’est gagné un immense appui au sein de la population. Chez les enseignants d’abord, professeurs et chargés de cours, des collèges et des universités, et leurs syndicats, fédérations et centrales. Le regroupement « Profs contre la hausse » en particulier, constitué dès le début de la grève, a multiplié les initiatives d’appui aux étudiants, sur les lignes de piquetage et par diverses initiatives. Il en est de même des organismes de défense des droits et libertés et de nombreuses personnalités. Le milieu des artistes leur a témoigné un solide appui. Il faut mentionner notamment la soirée des Jutra, qui récompense chaque année les intervenants du milieu du cinéma québécois, à l’occasion de laquelle on a vu cette année une majorité de ses artistes exhiber le carré rouge. L’affichage de l’appui à la cause étudiante est aussi largement répandu dans la population en général.”

André Maltais, “Comme au Québec, les étudiants chiliens revendiquent la gratuité scolaire,”

“Alors que les étudiants québécois se battent courageusement contre le gouvernement Charest, la CREPUQ, la police et la quasi-totalité des grands médias, presque personne ne parle du Chili où, depuis un an, les étudiants ont pourtant réussi à déclencher un véritable mouvement social à l’échelle nationale pour une éducation gratuite et de qualité.

“Après une paralysie des campus universitaires, des collèges et des lycées qui a duré cinq mois, entre mai et octobre 2011, après 37 mobilisations de plus de 100 000 personnes, deux grèves nationales de deux jours et deux changements de ministres de l’Éducation, les étudiants viennent de reprendre la rue.”

[1] The Coalition large de l’Association pour une solidarité syndicale étudiante [Broad coalition of the Association for student union solidarity].

[2] Respectively, the Fédération étudiante collégiale du Québec, Fédération étudiante universitaire du Québec, and the Table de concertation étudiante du Québec.

[3] Syndicats et progressistes pour un Québec Libre – Trade unionists and progressives for a free Quebec. Their article is entitled “To avoid Charest’s bear trap.”