http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/04/20/andrew-coyne-overhauling-how-students-pay-for-education/

In a recent article in the National Post, Andrew Coyne frames the perpetual debate about tuition in higher education as a problem of cash-flow, rather than total cost. He argues that students should pay the entirety of their tuition, but rather than requiring an upfront payment, they would be fronted the money in exchange for a stake in their life earnings.

Sounds fair, doesn’t it. Sounds kind of familiar too. That’s because Coyne is essentially advocating increased income tax.

Canada’s problem with socialism

Canada has always been stuck between the European socialist model and the American hyper-capitalist (i.e. privatized) model. There are limitless reasons for such a rock-and-hard-place dilemma, not least of which are simple geography and economic history. What the Canadian system amounts to though, is a general uneasiness with absolute socialism or absolute privatization. Along with this middle-of-the-road system, however, comes some unfortunate inefficiency. We run our higher education system as a private enterprise where universities are completely independent from government; except the government provides half of the university’s funding. This results, as Coyne recognizes, in sub-par teaching, since students are not paying the full amount of their cost:

“When universities depend on students, rather than governments, for the greater part of their revenues, they will devote a lot more energy and resources to their core mission — teaching students — than they do now”.

In the American system, students pay the full cost of their tuition and the system responds to the demands of students much more like a business. In most of western Europe, where education is free, or essentially free, the government pays for everything, but maintains significant control over curriculum and decisions at the university level. In Canada, students are getting the worst of both worlds; they have little control over decisions made by universities, but have to pay significant tuition costs.

This uneasiness with socialism is implicit in Coyne’s article. He can’t even recognize that the system he is advocating is essentially what European countries have done forever. Getting students to pay back the cost of tuition over their lives with payment amounts geared to income is the same as graduated income tax. Unsurprisingly European socialist countries (Scandinavians, France, Austria etc.) have higher tax rates, especially for the wealthy. Coyne feels the need to frame a socialist manifesto for education in individualistic terms (i.e. you’re paying back what you were given). But that’s in essence no different than the tax method (i.e. we’ll pay for your education now, but you have to pay for others’ education later). It’s a silly game of semantics so Coyne can avoid scathing critiques because people hate the word socialism.

In a weird turn of argument, Coyne then uses student dedication to back up his argument for what is commonly called in Canada “free education”:

“Conversely, students who are paying full freight will devote a good deal more time and attention to getting the most out of the experience than, for example, I did.”

Without any evidence, I fail to see the link between knowledge that students will be responsible for paying back the cost of tuition later in life and dedication while in university.

Why a socialist model?

Fairness, equality, individual decisional autonomy, efficiency etc. Though Coyne argues that the decision to attend university is based mostly on other factors such as familial background, removing present economic barriers to education certainly wouldn’t make the system less fair or equal. And, to make a conservative argument amongst all this rampant liberalism, people would be able to choose freely between higher education and the myriad other options that exist.

A socialist education system is a good idea is for quality of education. Right now scholastic standards vary wildly between universities and a focus continues to be on research over teaching. Funding the education system entirely through government would allow greater control over the curriculum and hiring process. A public system could also allow students to really discover what they want to do without having to worry about incurring the debt of one or two more years. This could increase job retention rates and decrease systemically expensive and inefficient job search times.

None of this, however, is a commentary on the underlying value of higher education. The question of whether increasing rates of higher education attendance is actually a good idea. Can an economy really function entirely on knowledge? But those are questions for another day.

Telecommunications service providers would be required to provide basic subscriber information to designated police, CSIS and Competition Bureau officials upon request. This identifying information would be limited to a subscriber’s name, address, phone number, email address, IP address, and the name of their service provider. This information can already be provided without a warrant under existing legislation, but only on a voluntary basis, which results in inconsistent access and delay.

Source

According to the above quote, we should be happy that the new bill limits accessible information to….every piece of information required to establish your identity and link you to any alleged crime associated with your IP address. That’s fine though, the police need to conduct investigations. The frightening part is that all the access occurs without judicial oversight, no warrant or application required, no need for probable cause or any evidence by investigators. We should also feel very sorry for the government because the current voluntary request system means inconsistent access for investigators. What a terrible, terrible inconvenience. It should be noted that obtaining records of transactions, search histories etc. will still require a warrant. Bill C-30 does, however, allow a judge to sign a single warrant for surveillance of multiple types of information and other powers are “streamlined”. We’re not at the best part though.

Today, just hours after tabling Bill C-30, the Conservatives ended the long-gun registry by passing legislation through a final vote. Why did they want to abolish the long gun registry? At least in part because the Conservatives found that the information collected on gun owners was an invasion of their privacy.

I’m not exactly old, but I’m old enough to remember the Jetsons. Though we still don’t have in-house conveyer belts and all-in-one wake-up machines, the Mypressi Twist adds a little bit of Jetsons magic to the world’s most consumed breakfast beverage. Espresso preparation doesn’t lend itself to simplicity. Sure there are “espresso” or, god forbid, “expresso” gadgets that are small, light, cheap and easy to use like moka pots and steam driven “espresso” machines. But none of those machines create espresso; the closest they come is strong and/or thick brewed coffee. The difference is crucial, and it’s in the details. Espresso is a method of preparation, a way to garner the tasteful oils and soluble solids without all the bitterness and caffeine that often comes with prolonged soaking of coffee grinds in hot water (read: percolation). Espresso involves momentary contact of very hot water with compressed, finely ground coffee under high pressure. This method of extraction runs contrary to thermodynamic principles – things don’t like to stay hotter or more pressurized than the atmosphere around them for long. Thus, espresso preparation has traditionally involved expensive, elaborate and often ineffective machines and has long remained the domain of commercial cafes. With recent technological and manufacturing advances, home espresso preparation has become more reasonable, if not exactly simple. Real espresso preparation remains steadfastly within the purview of OCD geeks. It’s worth a brief pause to contextualize the geeky appeal of espresso:

It’s very difficult to describe the taste and experience of high quality espresso. Suffice to say that it is unique from all other coffee preparations and, most importantly, from sub-par methods of espresso preparation. Ultimately, as in any food preparation, ingredients are the most important. Contrary to apparently popular belief, coffee gets stale. Quickly. Folgers lovers know the taste of stale coffee well. For a close facsimile, try soaking a rock-hard piece of bread in warm water for 3 minutes and munching on that. Yummm. For some reason, this kind of quality is completely acceptable among most coffee drinkers. After roasting, coffee beans remain acceptably fresh and retain taste for 2-3 weeks. After grinding, freshness wanes rapidly and taste declines within minutes.

But, enough with the preamble and back to the Twist. Think of a toaster oven. Now flip it on its side. That’s about the size of a small-ish home espresso machine. Depending on the features, they can cost anywhere from $600 to $3000; as a rule of thumb, expect to pay between $800 and $1000 for anything of decent quality. As a committed life-long student living on debt, my first whimsical espresso purchase occurred not because I was particularly in love with espresso, but because I found a CHEAP La Pavoni at a yard sale when I was in Italy:
 This was the smallest espresso machine available that could (with great effort) make cafe-quality espresso and it’s about as basic as they come. It’s completely manual; no electric pump means that your arm is the pump. And, like any Italian-engineered equipment, it may look great but it’s a finicky beast.  It continues to serve me well, though my efforts are rewarded in a less than perfect ratio of attempts to successes. I didn’t (and continue) not to have the money to purchase more expensive pump-driven machines, so I felt very fortunate when a MyPressi Twist landed in my lap via a draw at a local Ottawa coffee shop. I had read much about the device (it’s far too small to call an espresso-machine). About the size of a wine bottle (though far more ergonomic) and weighing about as much as the bottle when full, it’s not exactly pocketable. Compared to every other espresso machine in existence, however, it’s TINY. It’s powered by N2O or CO2 cartridges, which provide the requisite 9 bars (135 PSI) of pressure to extract true espresso. This means that you pull the gun-like trigger and out pours espresso.

Of course, it’s not quite that easy. Like all espresso machines the Twist requires the requisite preamble to produce quality espresso: dosing (measuring/weighing the correct amount of coffee), grinding, tamping (pressing the coffee into the machine) and temperature control. But, the amazing thing about the Twist is that it can produce very, very good espresso. Not just, “good for it’s size”, but good even when compared to any other machine, including $10,000+ commercial machines. While it may not be as consistent or as quick as those commercial machines, it is eminently possible to produce exceptional espresso from the diminutive device. It also has a really great cool factor: I really do feel like a Jetson when syrupy espresso pours out of a machine that I’m holding in one hand!

It’s not all crema and perfect pours though – with no internal heat source, one of the two crucial elements of good espresso (temperature control) becomes difficult. Though the ingenious developers have made significant advances through the use of heat-retaining metals and design, the lack of an internal heat source adds an extra step – pre-heating. All the device’s various parts must be immersed in boiling water to get them up to temperature prior to pouring the shot water. Ultimately, the lack of internal heating is part of the appeal; small is the point. Most espresso machines also need to heat up – the Pavoni for example needs a good 10 to 12 minutes to get up to temperature/pressure – the Mypressi’s heating process is just a little more involved than flicking the “on” switch (see slide show at the top for a beginning to end guide, including preheating). The cartridges aren’t cheap, even the cheapest ones I can find usually work out to about 10 to 20 cents per shot. Each cartridge tends to last about 4 shots. Since the unit only costs $150 new, however, for a low-use household (1-2 shots a day) it shouldn’t break the bank. It’s also a bit of a pain to clean, the resulting puck is usually quite wet and requires complete disassembly after every shot. But having dealt with the finicky Pavoni for the last few years, it was a breeze. Finally, like any espresso machine, the magic is really in the grinder. Not being able to afford the requisite $600 for a really high-quality grinder, I resorted to a hand grinder upon returning with my chrome prize from Italy. It produces the required fine grind, but at a snail’s pace. Just last year I broke down and purchased Breville’s newest grinder – the Smart Grinder. Sure, it’s not a Baratza Vario, but it comes darn close for 1/4th of the price. Just a caution, if you want an electric grinder, be prepared to shell out at the very least, $200 along with a Mypressi.

The ingeniousness of the Mypressi is in its obviousness – NO2 cartridges have been around since the 50s for use in whipping cream among other things. Though the cartridges can’t be taken on a plane, they’re widely available, making the Mypressi easy to travel with (it comes with a bag!). Paired with a good hand grinder (see the Pavoni picture above) it would make a nice alternative to Folgers or French Press on camping/road trips! The proof of any espresso machine is in the shots – check out the photo gallery at the beginning of this post for my proof – it looks great, sure, but it tastes even better and really rips out the dark, chocolatey flavours that I can’t achieve on my Pavoni. It’s perfect for my lifestyle – no more than a couple shots a day – and really satisfies my OCD struggle for the perfect shots. Fiddling, for me, is part of the fun and really, if you’re looking for that quick fix, one of those superautomatic monstrosities might be more your speed. Somewhat oddly, one of the Mypressi’s quirks works in its favour: at the end of every shot, when you release the trigger, you get a whoosh of compressed air letting you know that your perfect pour has come to an end (almost like the sound of a door on the Starship Enterprise, the geekier among us might say). The future is tasty and satisfying.

The current socio-economic context demands that the law clarify the effects of bankruptcy and insolvency on pension benefits. In Re Indalex, the Ontario Court of Appeal (ONCA) broadened the rights of pension members to recover outstanding payments. The ONCA granted members priority over secured creditors, including the US Company who was debtor-in-possession of its bankrupt Canadian subsidiaries. The Court interpreted the company’s pension administrator role as a fiduciary duty owed to the members; this obligation took priority even during proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA). A broader interpretation of the members’ “deemed trust” under the Pension Benefits Act included all outstanding amounts regardless of payment timeframe. Indalex had breached its fiduciary duty to the pension members by attempting to undermine the operation of the deemed trust. The Court’s application of a constructive trust provided an equitable remedy for the underfunded pension.

Re Indalex presents a perfect opportunity to examine the development of a novel fiduciary duty and the application of a constructive trust in the context of secured transactions. Contrary to a Professor’s warning against conceptualizing equity as magic, the pension members felt the touch of a fairy godmother in the Court’s application of an equitable remedy. The case isn’t perfect, however, particularly when viewed from the perspective of the secured creditors whose priority was trumped by a previously unsecured interest.

Until the SCC decision, the new rules may introduce uncertainty in CCAA procedures. The challenges of underfunded pension plans will only worsen under the weight of increasing concurrent withdrawals. However, if creditors can’t be assured of their ability to claim secured interests from a debtor’s estate, the incentive to invest may decrease. If there is any hope of maintaining growth during the coming workplace exodus, investment is a necessity. Creditor prudence may also force businesses to outsource pension plans and purchase additional insurance to shield from a plan administrator’s fiduciary obligations. Such actions could drastically increase the cost of administering pension plans and decrease employer contributions. The question is one of efficiency. The ONCA appears to believe that placing the burden on the defaulting company is most efficient, but the SCC may not agree. The broad changes described by the ONCA may not be met with enthusiasm at the SCC, where “incremental change” and deference to Parliament may be used to prod legislators into action.