ARE SHAREHOLDERS MORE IMPORTANT THAN BONDHOLDERS?

Late this afternoon the Supreme Court of Canada delivered its most important business decision since the court was established in 1875.

The decision related to BCE and its friendly takeover by a consortium of companies headed by the Ontario Teachers Pension Fund for $52 billion dollars - the largest takeover in world history.

More specifically the question the Court dealt with was whether the directors of BCE adequately took into consideration the interests of the bondholders viz.a viz. the shareholders.

Shareholders use their money to buy stock in the company. So if the company’s shares go up the shareholder makes money. If the stock goes down the shareholder loses money. There are no guarantees. Buying stock means taking a risk.

The bondholders do not buy stock; they lend the company their own money. There is a contractual obligation to pay the bondholder interest on his or her money and to pay back the whole amount when the bond becomes due. There is little risk.

In the case before the Supreme Court the company argued that it owed the bondholders only their contractual obligations. The bondholders argued that the company failed to properly consider their interests in a debt-heavy takover that is gutting the value of their investment.

Today the Supreme Court came down unanimously on the side of the shareholders. Presumably now the deal, which must be wrapped up by June 30, will go ahead.

Do you agree with the Supreme Court’s decision?

Do you think it will now be more difficult for companies to raise financing because potential bond buyers will feel their interests are being subordinated to the interests of shareholders?

IS ANYBODY AGAINST A CARBON TAX?

There has not been a big issue separating the federal parties since the election of 1998 was fought on free trade. Now, as a result of Stephane Dion’s announcement there will surely be a big issue in the next federal election. It is called a carbon (pollution) tax and its purpose is to slow global warming.

There is no longer much scientific disagreement of the close connection between the emission of greenhouse gases and the inexorable rise in the earth’s temperature. Nor is there much disagreement that the burning of fossil fuels is the primary culprit. An essential part of a market-based solution must involve imposing a cost on those responsible for those emissions. The result would be a greater incentive to find ways either to reduce the burning of fossil fuels altogether or to continue burning them while preventing the toxic emissions from polluting the atmosphere. It’s simple. Tax fossil fuels and reduce global warming.

But that’s only the first half of the policy which will raise more than 15 billion in new taxes. The other half is that every dime of these carbon taxes will be returned to Canadians in the form of tax cuts and tax credits. So “the green shift” at one stroke creates the right incentives to reduce fossil-fuel use while not increasing the government’s tax take.

The richer we are, the more cars we own, the more air travel we do, and the more oil or electricity we use to heat our larger homes. So a carbon tax which raises the price of these products will collect more tax revenue from high-income households than from low-income ones.

Look at it this way. Imagine three income groups - low, middle and high - and suppose that the amount of carbon tax collected annually from the three groups is $3,000, $6,000, and $9,000 respectively. If there were equal numbers of taxpayers in each group, the government would then need to reduce income taxes by $6,000 for each taxpayer. The low-income households would clearly be better off while the middle-income group would see no change in their total after-tax income. Only the higher income households would be worse off because their income-tax reduction would be insufficient to cover their higher carbon taxes.

So a new Liberal government under Dion’s carbon tax would ensure that lower-income Canadians would end up the real winners. In addition, of course, to the environment.

Do you agree that climate change is happening?

Do you support Dion’s carbon tax?

Can any reasonable person be against such a task?

WHY MUST ALL MILK BE PASTEURIZED?

I am working under the assumption that in Canada all milk for human consumption must be pasteurized. (Am I correct in this assumption?)

So the milk must first be heated to kill off most of the bacteria that might be lurking in the barn or flourishing in the cow.

But a growing number of natural food fans are demanding the right to bring milk from teat to table, convinced that pasteurization strips away the very stuff that makes milk so nutritious to begin with. In the United States, perhaps in Canada too, there is a growing black market in unpasteurized milk.

Fans of raw milk are convinced that heating destroys the good bacteria as well as enzymes that can be beneficial to health. They claim that drinking raw milk can relieve asthma and eczema as well as giving flagging immune systems a boost.

So is raw milk safe to drink? Not entirely, according to health officials, who say bacterial contamination in milk has caused twice as many disease outbreaks as pasteurized milk.

In your view does drinking raw milk put too much trust in the farmer and the health of the cow?

Would you drink raw milk?

Do you think it should be available for purchase?

By the way, is mother’s milk pasteurized?

IS PREMARITAL SEX WRONG?

Most would agree that young people are staying away from church in droves. None has been more affected by this phenomenon than the Catholic church.

What is the problem? It would seem there is an almost total disconnect between what the septuagarian celibates in the church leadership teach and the lived experience of young people especially in sexual matters. Rules and regulations from the top are simply irrelevant to the church’s youthful constituency.

Fortunately, every once in a while a church leader emerges who gets it. One such is the Jesuit Cardinal, Maria Martini, now a respected biblical scholar and theologian based in Jerusalem. It is reported that the Cardinal came second to Cardinal Ratzinger in the last papal conclave. (What a great pope, Martini would have made). The Cardinal says that instead of condemning sex before marriage, the Church needs to listen patiently to young people.

Cardinal Martini writes in a book of essays that outright bans on sex before marriage are alienating young people from the Church. He adds that many young people “no longer take the Church as a dialogue partner or its teachings seriously.”

“No bishop or priest can fail to notice the physical closeness between people before marriage. We must change our attitude on this (Italics mine) if we want to protect the family and promote marital faithfulness. Illusions and prohibitions will achieve nothing.”

Cardinal Martini adds that most parents have come to accept that their children cohabit before marriage, and that acknowledgement had brought the generations closer together, nurturing “a new tenderness.”

Do you agree with Cardinal Martini that the Church must change its attitude toward premarital sex?

Or do you continue to think that premarital sex is wrong?

Will outright bans on premarital sex help the situation?

Or would it be more helpful to rescind the prohibitions and listen to young people?

CAN CELL PHONES CAUSE CANCER?

Senator Ted Kennedy’s diagnosis of a malignant brain tumor is once again stirring debate ove the safety of cell phones. (Kennedy is an habitual user).

Doctors point to research that indicates a link between cell phones and three types of tumors: cancer of a salivary gland near the ear called the parotid; glioma (the kind Senator Kennedy has); and acoustic neuroma, which is a tumor found near the ear.

An Israeli study published last year found a 58 per cent increase in risk for parotid tumors among people people who relied heavily on their cell phones. And a Swedish study found the risk of glioma and acoustic neuroma doubled after 10 years of heavy cell phone use.

Prominent neurosurgeons have stated they do not use cell phones next to their ears: “I use it on the speaker-phone mode,” said Dr. Vini Khurana, a prominent professor of neurosurgery at the Australian National University. “I do not hold it to my ear”, explained Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN’s chief medical correspondent and a neurosurgeon at Emory University Hospital. He also uses an earpiece.

Dr. Khurana says “it is anticipated that this danger { from cell phones] has far broader public health ramifications than asbestos and smoking.”

Would these warnings modify in any way your use of a cell phone?

WHERE’S THE BEST PLACE TO LIVE?

The up-scale London-based Monocle magazine has just issued their latest list of the world’s 25 most livable cities.

Vancouver placed eighth - higher than any other North American city - while Montreal finished 16th on the list. Toronto didn’t make the cut.

Monocle lauded Vancouver for its role in fighting climate change, increasing building density and cracking down on drug use in preparation for 2010 Olympics. Vancouver lost marks for its high crime rate, but jumped seven spots after placing 15th in 2007.

The magazine called Montreal “Canada’s cultural capital” (to which I say Amen) . The city was also credited for its strong arts community, booming gaming and aerospace industries and its extensive network of free wireless Internet. It lost marks for its strained health care system, poor recycling facilities and growing income disparity.

Having lived in Montreal since 1972, I would add the snap, crackle and pop produced by one of the largest French cities in the world, the network of bicyle paths and the glorious Mount Royal caparisoned in greenery and towering over the city. And let’s not forget the summer with wall to wall festivals headed by the jazz festival which attracts so many American tourists.

Monocle named Copenhagen the most livable city, on the strength of its green space and “sense of humour.” Munich, Tokyo, Zurich and Helsinki rounded out the top five.

Only three U.S. cities, Honolulu, Minneapolis and Portland made the list. I have been in the first two but not Portland (unless they are talking about Portland, Maine, which I very much doubt.?

Rome, London and New York were not mentioned by the magazine, which looked at smaller, user-friendly cities with vibrant arts scenes, plenty of parks and a friendly face.

Which has been your favourite place to live?

Where would you move to if you could?

I was a big fan of “Meet the Press” and Tim Russert, a man of faith, of family and of politics. RIP.

Am off Kingston this morning by train for a family birthday. Back on Monday. Have a great weekend.

IS HOMOPHOBIA WIDESPREAD?

Just when we thought that we, as a society, had made good progress in respecting and liberating gays, lo and behold another worm slithers out of the rotten woodwork.

This time it was Iris Robinson, the health spokeswoman for the governing party at Stormont, the northern Ireland government in Belfast.

Mrs. Robinson spoke on a live radio phone-in show after a 27-year-old gay man was beaten up in a homophobic attack near his home and left with horrific injuries.

She described homosexuality as “disgusting, nauseous, loathsome, shamefully wicked and vile” and said her strong Christian upbringing meant she would never change her views and nothing would stop her from speaking out on the issue. (Her husband, Peter Robinson, is Prime Minister of the northern Ireland parliament, a post he shares jointly with Sinn Fein).

Mrs. Robinson then offered to put gay and lesbian people in touch with a psychiatrist who she described as a born-again-Christian who would help them change their sexuality: “He is a Born Again Christian and has links all over the world and I have met people who have been turned around to become heterosexual and who have gone on to get married and raise families.

“Homosexuality is not natural. My Christian beliefs tell me that it is an abomination and that is very clear.”

Do you agree homosexuals can be taught to become heterosexuals?

Do you think Mrs. Robinsons’s views on gays are shared by a significant number in society?

Is there a connection between gay bashing and religious beliefs?

SHOULD A SCHOOL BOARD HAVE TO REHIRE A KILLER?

In 1990 Jean-Alix Miguel was convicted of manslaughter and served seven years in prison after beating his common-law wife to death. In 1998, he was hired by the Montreal School Commission as an electrician instructor at one of their trade schools.

Miguel did not disclose his criminal record on his job application, as is required, and the school board refused to renew his contract after discovering this omission in 2004. The Board maintains that it did not renew his contract, not because of his criminal past but because he lied about it.

Miguel’s teacher’s union took his case to arbitration. The arbitrator ruled that Miguel did not pose a threat to his students and colleagues because he has a good teaching record and because his crime was not related to his work.

The Board then took the case to the Quebec Court of Appeal which last week rejected the appeal. According to Justice Marc Beauregard, there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the school board “did not want to employ someone who has been convicted of manslaughter, regardless of the circumstances of the offense and the rehabilitation of the perpetrator.”

Possibly implicit in the court’s ruling is the thinking the Board fired Miguel because of his criminal record but used the excuse that he lied about it. In any event the court ordered the Board to rehire the convicted killer.

Should the Board rehire Miguel straightaway or should it appeal the case to the Supreme Court of Canada.

What do teachers think? Should a board be forced to rehire a killer?

What do you think?

SHOULD MEDICARE PAY FOR IN-VITRO FERTILIZATION?

A confontation is brewing in the Quebec National Assembly between the government and the two opposition parties.

The issue is whether tax payers’ money should be used to cover in-vitro fertilization procedures, which can cost $10,000 and have an average success rate of about 20 per cent.

If both opposition parties hang together, they could defeat the government. Parti Quebecois health critic, Bernard Drainville read a letter from a woman who mortgaged her home and maxed out a line of credit, going $50,000 in debt to pay for in-vitro fertilization.

Drainville says medicare pays for tying fallopian tubes and performing vasectomies to prevent pregnancies, and pays for abortions, so it should also pay for in-vitro fertilization. Also several European countries do so.

A spokesperson for the health minister, Philippe Couillard, argues that in-vitro is expensive and has a low success rate. She added that in-vitro is risky for the mother and there is a higher risk the baby will be born prematurely multiplying the chances of birth defects.

Couillard himself argues it would $20 million to $30 million a year to cover in vitro and that money would be taken away from other treatment.

An editorial in the Gazette this morning echoes the minister: “This is too large a burden for the taxpayer to bear. Our medical system is already staggering under the load of life-and-death interventions that we cannot pay for.”

If we do not have the money to pay for cancer treatment in a timely fashion, should we have the money for in vitro?

On the other hand, Julie Snyder, the TV presenter whose partner is Pierre Peladeau, wants all Quebec women to have access to in vitro. “The result would be “more little Quebecers, more little taxpayers.” (Snyder herself is five months pregnant as a result of in vitro.)

What do you think?

Should Quebec use taxpayers’ money to pay for in-vitro fertilization at $10,000 a pop?

IS AN APOLOGY TO THE NATIVE PEOPLES GROVELLING?

Tomorrow in the House of Commons at three o’clock the Prime Minister will rise to make a formal apology to the thousands of men and women who suffered mistreatment as young residents of a state-funded Christian school system aimed at stripping them of their aboriginal culture and connections.

Two in three Canadians agree it’s high time “that the government and Canadians come to terms with its past actions.”

One in three Canadians disagree with the practice, endorsing the view that today’s government and society “shouldn’t be held accountable” for yesterday’s wrong-doing, so no apologies are necessary.

Generally speaking native leaders support the government’ action.

However, some of them have reservations. The Harper government refused to involve native leaders in the drafting of the apology. NDP leader Jack Layton protested the government’s excluding the native chiefs. The government “runs the risk of that kind of paternalistic attitude of ‘we-know-best and the first nations will just have to accept what we dish out.’”

Secondly, some native spokespeople charge that Ottawa should provide free transport for the survivors and others to attend the ceremony. Harper has relented and some native chiefs will be seated on the floor of the Commons. But they will not be allowed to speak. Why not?

Finally, shouldn’t the Harper government, as well as apologizing, make its policies toward native peoples more sensible? Recently, as part of the residential school monetary settlement, the Treasury doled out $20,000 to each adult in one smaller band. The most visible signs of this misguided munificence was an increase in drunkeness and suicide.

The National Post calls the apology “the greatest grovel in Canadian history.”

Perhaps the reason is that every time your turn around, some group pops up asking for a government apology.  Back in 1914 a group of Sikks was turned away from a port in British Columbia.  Today their descendants want compensation and an apology.

Do you agree the Harper government should apologize for the abuse of native children?

Or do you think the whole thing is in the past and should be forgotte?

Should the government have involved the natives in drafting the apology?

Should the government have provided transport for survivors to come to Ottawa for the ceremony?