Imagine the hardships Quebec students striking against the province’s proposed post-secondary tuition increase have had to endure these past few months.

It must be tough juggling that soy latte and shiny new iPod while holding “free tuition” signs.

In reality, it’s hard to feel sympathy for the so-called plight of these Quebec students who already pay the lowest tuition in the country — less than half the national average. Even with the proposed increase, tuition will still be lower than in most other provinces.

The only students I feel bad for are the ones who want to be in school and graduate but haven’t been able to attend class because of the standoff between the Quebec student groups and the government.

Student organizations leading the charge probably liken themselves to the major social movements of the 60s and 70s. Except back then, people were fighting for things like equal pay and civil rights, not cheaper tuition when it’s already heavily subsidized.

Some students are demanding tuition should be “free” — of course, it isn’t really free because taxpayers foot the bill. Post-secondary education should be affordable and accessible, and students should get value for tuition increases. But what’s wrong with expecting students to contribute to their education?

Society benefits from educating people — but the degree-holder benefits, too. Students are the ones getting the credentials that help them land good paying jobs.

I recently completed a law degree, and while my tuition was subsidized by the government, I paid a good chunk of it. And there’s nothing wrong with that because ultimately, I’m the one who’ll be benefiting from all those billable hours.

Paying tuition helps students value their education more because they’ve invested in it. What does it say about how much you value your education when you aren’t willing to pay a dime for it?

The system should also incentivize students to complete their degrees and get jobs. In countries like Germany, where tuition is free, the perma-student is a common breed. Students will go back for multiple victory laps and collect degrees like a kid collects baseball cards. Hey, when it’s free, why not?

And then there’s the claim that people have a ‘human right’ to study things like 17th Century poetry for four years. It’s no wonder we have degree inflation when they’re treated like an early adulthood souvenir.

Our generation has it pretty darn good. Maybe we should be fighting against entitlement, not tuition.

There’s an old saying “that the road to hell is paved with good intentions,” and it sprang to mind when I read David’s column this week.

Raising the minimum wage is one of those things that seems like a great idea in theory, but in practice only ends up hurting the very people it is supposed to help. That’s the thing about ideas that work in theory but not in practice — it means the theory is flawed.

The best way to help the unemployed is for them to get a job. Any job is better than no job. A job provides income, pride, self-worth and valuable experience. And the “free-market,” which David denigrates, is the best way to provide the most people with the best-paying jobs.

Minimum wage laws set an artificial floor for the price of non-skilled labour. This level is set arbitrarily by the provincial government based on what they think is politically “fair.” But the market also sets a price based on what employers are willing to pay for that task, and what potential employees are willing to accept.

Sometimes the wage the market sets is higher than the government-set minimum wage. A good example of this was Calgary in the oil boom a few years ago — when McDonald’s was advertising $18 per hour and full benefits for entry-level jobs. The minimum wage wasn’t helping anyone because employers had to fork out a higher rate just to attract entry-level workers.

The other scenario is that the minimum wage is above the market rate. That means employers hire fewer people. Why? Because the cost of each additional employee is greater. Just because the minimum wage goes up, doesn’t mean that employers have more money to hire the same number of people. If the minimum wage goes up above the market rate, fewer new entry-level positions will be created and some employers might be forced to lay off existing workers.

Higher minimum wages actually mean fewer jobs for low-income people in entry-level positions. It hurts the same poor people that David think it helps. And there’s proof — since the B.C. government announced it was jacking up the minimum wage to $10.25, there are 27,100 fewer part-time jobs in B.C. Heavens knows how many jobs a minimum wage at $19.14 would kill.

The answer is clear: to get the highest number of people working, let the free-market set wages.

Students aren’t the only ones that don’t look forward to report cards. It turns out teachers don’t seem to like them much either. The British Columbia Teachers’ Federation has called writing missed report cards unnecessary, and talked about how they’ll add to teachers’ already “onerous workload.”

Report cards have been a casualty in the ongoing standoff between the B.C. teachers’ union and the provincial government. Now, the latest is that the BC Labour Relations Board ruled public school teachers must issue outstanding report cards.

Without getting into the nitty-gritty on the strike and job action, let’s take a look at report cards.

In an education system where we have few ways to grade the teachers, this makes report cards valuable tools to measure how things are really going in the classroom.

The BCTF calls the issuing of outstanding report cards “work for the sake of work.” But actually, report cards are work for parents and students’ sake. So they have an official record of how their kids are doing in school and the progress they’ve made.

The BCTF claims that teachers have been keeping in touch with parents, keeping them updated on how their kids are doing.

This may be true. But then how do you actually measure a student’s progress if they are struggling? With report cards that contain both grades and comments on things like performance and ability.

Just like there are some wonderful teachers out there who go above and beyond when it comes to communicating with parents about how their kids are doing, there are lousy ones who don’t make the same effort.

After I wrote about report cards last month, several parents contacted me saying teachers had failed to keep them informed. I’ve also had teachers suggest to me that informal communication via notes and emails is a better approach than official report cards.

The key with report cards is that they are standardized. Every student and parent in the province can expect consistent updates on how they are doing at school.

There seems to be a debate in the teaching world about the importance, or necessity of report cards. BCTF website points out how completing report cards is a “significant workload issue” for teachers.

But it’s not about what’s best for teachers; it’s about what’s best for students and their parents.

That’s who the public education system really works for.

We hear all the time about how prohibition of marijuana hasn’t really worked. Kids smoke pot, gangs smuggle drugs and bad guys get rich. But all that happens not because of prohibition, but because society lets it happen.

The problem is not prohibition, it’s that in B.C., society and the government send very mixed messages on drugs. On one hand, the law says drugs are illegal, the government runs TV ads targeting kids about the dangers of everything from cannabis to crystal meth, and the police hunt down drug growers and smugglers. But on the other hand, sometimes it seems we’ve given up enforcement of marijuana laws on drug users in the Lower Mainland. When people are arrested, they rarely go to jail, and if they do, it isn’t for very long — and then we have elected officials musing watering down the law.

If you want to see the blind eye we turn on marijuana use and sale, just walk down Robson Street by the back steps of the Art Gallery on a sunny afternoon. It doesn’t take long to smell the pot smoke, or to be approached by someone looking to sell you something illegal.

If the justice system doesn’t take an illegal activity seriously, why would we expect anyone else to? If we are going to prohibit marijuana, let’s really do it and treat it seriously. No more mixed messages.

We know this works. I recently lived in Singapore, where the drug trade and drug problems are virtually non-existent, despite it being one of the busiest ports in the world. Like most countries, Singapore’s approach is that marijuana is illegal — but they back it up. Possession of marijuana can get you 10 years in jail and a $16,000 fine. Trafficking can even result in a death sentence. I’m not saying we should bring in capital punishment, but the point is when you get serious, you get results. If the punishment outweighs the profits, the violent gangs will get out of the drug business.

And as for the tired old line that we can use taxation to cut young people off from marijuana — how has that worked out with cigarettes? Or alcohol?

David claims that most people want to see the laws on cannabis changed. But if that is the case, why doesn’t any major political party, including the NDP, support legalization?

Marijuana and other drugs are illegal because they are harmful. Making them legal won’t eliminate the harm, we’ll just be sanctioning misery.

Here’s my latest column for 24 Hours Vancouver. David Eby and I went to bat on pipelines, a topic everyone seems to be talking about these days. You can check out Eby’s take here.

Pipelines from Alberta are in the news a lot these days. And it’s only just beginning.

How oil from the oilsands is delivered to market will become one of the biggest issues in politics and, business for years to come.

Most Canadians don’t realize just how much oil is in the oilsands around Fort McMurray. It’s estimated Canada has the second largest oil reserves in the world, only after Saudi Arabia.

Canada has become a rich country because of our natural resources, and the oilsands are an important part of that. The oilsands alone make a huge contribution to government coffers from coast to coast — as much as half a trillion dollars over the next two decades. A huge part of our future prosperity is linked to how we manage the oilsands.

Some radicals think we can leave the oil in ground, turn off the taps and live on alternative energy. But the practical matter is that for the foreseeable future our entire civilization runs on oil. If the oilsands were shut down or development delayed, we’d still be importing oil from places like Nigeria or Venezuela — and this is bad for the environment since these are countries that do not have the same stringent environmental laws as Canada.

There isn’t enough demand in Western Canada for all our oil. We need to export it to new markets, and selling it means more royalties and taxes for the government, which results in more social programs and lower taxes for Canadians.

To sell our oil we need pipelines — pipelines to the U.S. Gulf Coast, to Eastern Canada so they no longer have to import oil from abroad, and to the B.C. Coast so we can export Canada’s oil to what will soon be the world’s largest energy market — East Asia. Canada’s refineries are currently running under capacity, what we need are more pipelines to transport the oil, not refineries.

Of course there are environmental concerns with pipelines and oil tankers. But this is nothing new — tankers have been coming into Vancouver harbour every day for decades without incident. What is new is the technology that has made pipelines and tankers safer than they were even ten years ago.

B.C. needs these new pipelines because they will make Canada richer, make our energy cheaper and get us world prices for our oil exports, which is something all Canadians benefit from.