unChosen

You don't fix a financial deficit/debt problem by taking more money from one of the poorest groups in Canada and by making them take on more debt. Either solve the problem by taking money from those who have the most stable income, or by cutting services that have the least impact on the country's future. This holds true whether your view of economics is right or left. Whatever money the Quebec government saves on milking tuition money from students will ends up being lost once those students graduate and instead of contributing to the tax base, buying products to help businesses, or investing in their own businesses...they'll end up taking any crappy job they can as soon as possible. They'll then pay most of what they earn in their "desperation" jobs to service debt and ends up contributing nothing to the tax base or the economy. The best group to be asked to pay up right now is not the students, it's the public service workers, including Charest and other politicians with their gold plated pensions, near untouchable job security and high wages. Heck, investigate and kick out all of the corrupt government officials. Then you satisfied both the right (elimination of big government) AND the left (stop corrupt government from wasting money on crazy corporate projects) AND save far more money than they can ever get from the students. Even if I want to get money from students a tuition hike is probably the worst way to do it. A better way is to actually make tuition free or cheaper but make the students sign a contract that they'll pay a portion of their income after they graduate as an "extra tax" once their income reach above a certain threshold.

The problem is what exactly qualifies as "disadvantaged"? As a student who just graduated in BC, I had first hand experience going through lists of grants, scholarships, and bursaries. The problem is that they nearly all have extremely strict criterion: 1. For the smartest of the smart only. So many of these scholarships/grants/bursaries requires A or above averages...and even if it doesn't chances are they'll be given to those with A/A+ averages anyways because there are no limit to the number of grants/scholarships/bursaries one can receiver. 2. For the extremely poor only. If a student works 2 part time jobs while studying full time and barely making ends meet...he/she has less chance of obtaining a grant/bursary compared to those who does no jobs. The system gives no incentives to hard workers at all. 3. For those who dedicate their lives to the community. Once again, students who are living with wealthy parents have far more time to dedicate hours and hours volunteering in comparison to students working multiple jobs. In conclusion, what ends up happening is that a select few students grabs all the scholarships/grants/bursaries, in which a portion of those students does not even need those financial help at all. The one student I know in university with the most scholarships and grants comes from a well off family that paid for everything so she can focus all her time on studying and volunteering. As for loans, unless the student manages to get a high paying job relatively soon after he/she graduates any benefits of the loan would end up disappearing into the black hole that is compound interest. It's why we hear so many horror stories of 50+ year old worker still paying off student loan. IMO, loans should not have have interest higher than inflation and the interest calculation should only start after a student gets an income higher than a certain amount...at least enough that he/she can reduce the debt rather than accumulating or breaking even. It's fortunate for me that my parents had RESP for me so the loan was paid in full immediately after I graduated.

Any protest with 200,000+ people will always prevent some people from going about their business. Unless you plan to tell me that they should all go into the wilderness where no one lives and start "protesting".