foggy mornings

For those anticipating visiting town the Thanksgiving, I suggest you bundle up! While the days are warm, 17 degrees Celsius on our deck on Thursday, and the water temperature was a balmy 15˚ .
I have seen rainbows through the water vapour. It is so beautiful.
In town, the ink-black clouds portend a heavy rain, but bless us with a rainbow.




The temperature inversion, the lake being warmer than the air, gives us a morning fog that sets fog creatures dancing across the water. It is like seeing friends dancing across the lake. I find it comforting.

Ontario Municipal Board

The advice for aspiring writers is to write everyday. I find an idea and I usually pop the topic into a file. Much to my surprise, a topic of concern to us in Muskoka has been recognized in Toronto. Let me explain our situation here first!

All over Ontario we elect councillors who then make town planning decisions based on long-term plans for an area. It takes into account local and regional concerns, i.e., environmental issues, the enjoyment of a particular area, location of businesses that respect residents and prevent, or resolve conflicts between land use.

If a potential developer wants to put in condos, or high density land use in an area of low density residences, for example, the potential business developer first approaches the town council to seek a ruling or variance on original town plans. Once the councillors choose not to allow a developer in, since it often violates the spirit of their town plan, the developer may go to the OMB to protest the decision. This is what happened in Muskoka. The OMB often hears from local cottagers, or developers, who want to defy the town plan (July 18, Feb.: Red Leaves Development, rezoning issues.

The environment is of great concern here in the cottage country in Muskoka. It is a fragile environment and even more fragile economy (with tourism down by 30%). The Muskoka Wharf project, overdone, and blocking all views of the natural harbour, clutters a beautiful tourist attraction. It draws those with much cents, and little sense of the environment. I understand that tourism is important to our economy, but there needs to be a better use of this land. Many of the cottagers around us have been renting out their properties in high season. Unfortunately, it is to people who neither respect the environment or their neighbours. This seems to be the way of Muskoka.

Taboo is an expensive resort in the area. We popped in for a glass of wine and cup of coffee this summer and we had to fork out $25. I kid you not. Recently, Taboo having been turned down by the Councillors, fought it. As with many lakes, they are saturated and cannot support any more boats, cottagers, or citiots, and this plan does not fit in with town management. As always, the business owners went to the OMB to file an appeal and get new decision. Despite the fact that the Councillors said NO, it seems that the OMB, in its infinite wisdom, can over rule those who live, love, and work in this area. It is criminal that most OMB hearings (75 % according to Wikipedia) work in favour of developers, despite a planning council that determines the best development for an area in question.

Imagine my surprise when Global TV News featured a stree in Toronto, called OMB Folly! It seems that these North York councillors are well past any progress is keeping control of their city and the OMB fat cats, paid hundreds of dollars a day to basically overrule the town council, have been overturning local decisions. They do not understand land use, despite many of the council members having experience in land development and town planning.

The OMB has a long history of angering locals. Even the Toronto Mayor has weighed in on this issue. In a Toronto Star article it overruled a decision to keep out a big box WalMart. I laud North York, but hope that someone investigates this Board. There seems to be something wrong when appointed officers over rule fairly elected local officials.

investment advice

It is important to have good friends when things go bad. I remember my friend, Les, phoning us in Osgoode when our power was out, due to Ice Storm '98, for 11 days. He was a beacon in the darkness. He offered us hot coffee and warm thoughts. In these times, when economics dominate the headlines, scaring us retirees, many are scaring investors and some (Suze Orman) offer advice.

I knew I could count on Les. He is also our investment advisor. He always seems to be our font of wisdom when there is a financial consideration. His calm, cool wisdom, and educated advice have worked for me for years. He tells us not to panic. My winter during my bereavement I wrote Les long notes he kindly read. It helps to talk to others.

In order to avoid truthiness I have reproduced (with permission) the wise words of my friend Les. He always seems to have the right advice at the right time. When the markets sour he points out that we are in this long-term. We have ceased opening up our monthly statements. This will pass. It will not last forever.

Here is what Les wrote to us in his latest, most welcome epistle...

While "shaken" may be great for James Bond's martini, investor emotions don't appreciate market volatility. For many, a market downturn can be stressful. We're now in the downside of a market cycle, and decisions made now have a greater impact on your financial future than during any other time.

And while Gentlemen (and women) may instinctively Prefer Bonds more than ever, both history and logic overwhelmingly suggest that a fearful flight-to-cash or bonds would be the wrong and even risky move. Selling Low and Buying High is the exact opposite of a successful long-term strategy. (Of course, the Bonds and/or Preferred Shares you may already hold have provided some great insulation - which is why we would have made them a part of your plan.)

Investors are often tempted to extrapolate bad news and want to dash to the sidelines, not realizing that even if they turn out to be right in predicting more downside in the short-term, they then have to guess right again in choosing the time to get back in to the market to catch the next swift and sudden upsurge. Conversely, when stock (or real estate?) markets are riding high and everything looks rosy, investors are often tempted to buy more than they should, often at overly expensive prices. Market timing is something no one has ever been able to do consistently, and the consequence of missed timing is profits.

Since we are hard-wired with fight-or-flight emotions, here are 5 ways to keep emotions in check:

1) Follow this important rule: "There are two times when we forget our investment strategies. At the TOP of the market, and at the BOTTOM." Don't forget your investment strategy.

2) If checking your portfolio online when values are going down upsets you, stop checking your portfolio. When your statements arrive, consider putting them aside to open later.

3) Avoid influences that are negative. Investment programs on TV and newspaper headlines sensationalize current events, blaring the negative and mumbling through the positive, and they seldom have a calming effect. This can take your mind away from important facts.

4) If you are concerned about how your Financial Plan will be affected, speak with your Advisor who prepared the plan. The three most important words in investing are: Advice, Advice, Advice. We are your best sounding board.

5) Markets always go up and down. Volatility is the price you pay for higher returns over the long-term. Your Financial Plan is designed to take market fluctuations into consideration. Have faith in your plan.

5 ways to profit:

1) Don't sell now. This is the time when your managers are doing their best work for you and typically outperform markets. Combined with their analysts' expertise, they have far more knowledge and experience than you do, even if they inevitably make mistakes (no such thing as perfect). Let the managers manage. And to access other expertise, listen to some of the conference calls I listed in an e-mail last week.

2) Many great companies are ON SALE now. Is Coca-Cola a much different company today than a year ago? Does Petro-Canada suddenly sell products that no one wants any more? Is General Electric no longer a diversified, multi-national conglomerate? If you usually add money to your investments early in the New Year, consider adding some of that money now instead of waiting for later when markets might be higher. This could help increase your long-term returns.

3) If you make monthly contributions to your investments, this is a time that allows you to buy new investments at very attractive prices. This will help boost your returns in the long run. Consider increasing your monthly contributions for even greater impact.

4) If you take regular income from your portfolio above and beyond Dividends and Interest, sell stable investments such as Bonds when markets are down. Later, when stock markets have rebounded, you can re-balance accordingly.

5) Share these tips with your spouse. Together, you'll make the most profitable decisions.

There are always reasons not to invest - in fact, I attach 48 of them, one for each year starting in 1960! Yet patient investors have made excellent returns over this time.

Extreme market volatility looks to continue in the short-term, not only in the U.S. but around the world. The credit freeze-up has put ice in the financial pipes and led to extreme and even absurd market behaviour, which can't last. The mortgage asset purchase program finalized late last week is a key step in thawing the pipes and, ultimately, in regaining market confidence.

As I mentioned in my e-mail last week, Bear markets are a normal fact of life and are followed by great gains. Following the seven major Bear markets from 1960 onwards, stock markets on average gained 29% within one year and 45% (cumulative) two years later (U.S. data, chart enclosed). Do you really want to get out now?

I certainly do appreciate that 2008 has proven to be a very difficult and frustrating year. It's easy to forget that the last five years produced great gains! Or that the period immediately before that was difficult, too. Like other Bear markets, this one will end, and stocks will move sharply upward again.

Regards,
Les Kom, FMA
Financial Planner and Investment Advisor
www.leskom.ca

(Reprinted by permission.)

Parry Sound-Muskoka Election Fever

The Federal polls are becoming interesting. The hyperbole has been telling, with exaggerations of carbon tax success in other countries, mixed reviews by those in the know, and Kyoto Protocol lack of progress around the world, yet leaders and candidates continue to flog these ideas based on vastly different countries.

While I have blogged about the 2008 Federal Election debate elsewhere, I think it worth looking at what is going on locally in Parry Sound-Muskoka. Our family voted in the advance polls Oct. 3rd, and found that quite a few people had done so and many more were lined up trying to do so. The local debates have been varied in their focus, Metroland posed and posted a video featuring a creative question to candidates "if you had $10 million dollars". Rather unrealistic for our local candidates, but it did reflect their personal viewpoints, priorities and biases.

Local reporters are writing stories that border on interpretation and identification of the news and are electioneering. This must be taught to journalists, as The Toronto Star does the same thing: editorials telling us what to think, disguised as articles ("No licensed child care for majority of Canadian kids"). There is a name for this: truthiness, coined by Colbert. Reporters hint at how we should be voting, based on the information they provide about candidates and issues. The mendacity of candidates is reiterated by reporters in some bizarre tale wagging the dog(if you excuse the pun).

Such media reinforces the difference between editorials and articles. Young families facing tough economic times" seemed more of a research paper than a news article, as the Gravenhurst banner reporter sought to provide undocumented information ("rising need in emergency assistance programs") Rick Williams, the district commissioner of community services, was interviewed and his perceptions were used as back-up information to the election article. He believes that as a result of rising rent and utility costs our local families are in trouble. This may well be, but in what should be an article reporting candidate positions spent much time and column space interviewing an unelected official who may or may not have any data.

What is interesting is that a local, municipal issue, with no real data beyond one local civil servant's opinion, was used as a platform to highlight Federal party lines and responses to economic issues. It is as if the reporter came up with a story line and wrote her "Election Report 2008" article reporting on the election to fit her article. We want to know what the candidates are saying, not what a reporter has dug up. She need no justify the candidates responses. I resent being convinced by a reporter of a socioeconomic problem.

I worry about strategic voting, Parry Sound Press (owned by Metroland North Media), for example, offers a video of a respectful, calm event that included voter/candidate questions on health care. The Huntsville Forester featured a less gentle debate during which Mr. Clement was grilled on his absence from Canada during the Listeriosis crisis. If you crave more, one person has copied the CBC TV news reports of the Federal debate and broadcast them there, too. Many commented on Mr. Harper's supercilious demeanour. The Orillia Packet had something about signage wars.

The Parry Sound rally was a terrific event with both fans (not necessarily Green Party voters) and supporters of Elizabeth May in attendance. Ms. May certainly has fueled much local response by her train trip launch, visiting the whistle stops, videos proliferate the web as the electorate shares as much info and generates as much hype as possible.

The local buzz, though, revolves around tax breaks (or the lack thereof) for a new condo development and local hospital testing services that are being cut by the LHIN. These are issues that seem to take as much front page news as the election.

We have 68,577 electors (2006), and in 2004 there were 43,936 people who voted. This reflects the estimated 60+% turnout in 2006, as well as the local turnout in 2006 of 46,170.
But there is some fervour with signs popping up all over, blowin' in the cold October wind!

strategic voting

I think the media is giving a great amount of coverage to a concept that has yet to be fully explored. The mainstream media, as well as columnists in local papers (Vote swapping & strategic voting), seem to be advocating for an ABC (AnyoneButConservative) approach to this election. This is a scary thought.

I cannot for the life of me see what the difference is between the Conservatives and the Liberals. While the Conservatives have instituted a lower taxes, more cash to the people philosophy, the Liberals, who have traditionally operated with a sense of entitlement, are no better.

I resent journalists advocating for this philosophy.

We must vote according to our consciences. In responses to a question at the Parry Sound - Muskoka riding debate in Gravenhurst, candidates explained how they felt about this issue. Voting for the lesser of two evils you will never end up with what you believe in. You must indicate, in a democratic system, whose positions you believe best represent you and your values. If you vote strategically, you jeopardize the results for future elections. I felt I could not vote strategically, as I wanted to convey to my local politicians, and party leaders, which platforms best represented me and my ideas. When it comes right down to it, my vote likely will do less in ousting a politician and more to put my vote behind the party I believe in.

Voter turnout (64.7 %) is iffy, at best, and with 9000 voters signing in to the vote swapping site, I would hope that the rest of the millions in the electorate would be wiser. I was trying to determine how many eligible voters there are in Canada's population of 30 million and I could not. I am not sure anyone knows. I do know that I want my vote to be firmly placed in front of those planks and platforms that allow me to be voting freely in a democratic process.

Fall & Rainbows

These photos speak for themselves.

The cooler air and dark clouds revealed a wonderful rainbow.



Lots of leaves are still turning, many more falling.





Photographers have been seen to capture signs of fall.

Federal Debate Deconstruction

I do not believe anyone can objectively analyse the Canadian Federal election debate in terms of party policy, candidate performance, and who are the 'winners & losers'. I do believe it important to deconstruct the process. Anyone I have heard speaking to this issue, or writing about it, reflects their previous bias on their personal candidate preference. Our local debate showed me how my local candidates handled themselves in a pressure situation. This gives me lots of information. Another person blogged about HIS local debate in North Bay. This is an excellent development in the use of technology, as long as you trust those who are posting, but I digress.

Many are saying that candidate X, Y, or Z 'performed well'. I think that they all went in, guided by their handlers and advisers, and achieved what they set out to do. That does not mean that they swayed any of viewers who had already made up their minds, i.e., those who were critical of Mr. Harper's demeanor must have missed the point. Those who like him said he was being confident, tough, strong and didn't want to get sucked into defending himself, and risk losing his temper. Those who do not like his politics labelled him aloof, overconfident and snarky. The other candidates did well at reflecting on his performance and his mistakes in the thrust and parry of such an event. This is their role. Some say M. Dion was the big loser, others

If you are interested in what was said, Basen & Gray kept up a point-by-point outline of the progress of the debate. This is helpful for those who cannot bother reading or following party platforms and allows you to make your own judgement. The National Post had a live blog on the debate.

I listened to Rex Murphy in conversation with Peter Mansbridge, on The National, as they examined the structure of the debate. Mr. Murphy felt that this aspect of the debate a failure. I most heartily disagree!

I thought Steve Paikin did an admirable job refereeing and allowing some spunk into the event. The American debate for President and Vice-President were quite tame, in retrospect. I wanted to see sparks as my potential politicians and public leaders, and potential opposition leaders, rose to the occasion to confront the government, their policy and Mr. Harper's lack of platform. For me he balanced the right amount of reins but let us see their spirits.

I liked being able to see around the table. I will not reproduce the photo, as this violates copyright laws!) Seeing them in the circle is a not-so-subtle message that we are on this ride together. It made for interesting viewing IMHO. My hope is that these party leaders can work together post-election, to create a government that will pass policies that will work for the electorate. Based on WLU seat projections and CBC polls, if we accept that sort of thing, there will be a Conservative minority.

The great debate

What an interesting Canadian Federal election debate. I must admit I am of two minds.

Firstly, it is difficult weeding through the media coverage to find what the politicos have concluded, as differs from how they think the politicians performed. The real race happens on October 14th, and I would prefer less information from journalists, who confuse editorials with news reports, since they don't seem to interview experts in politics.

For example, Keith Boag, on CBC Newsworld, explained that while one leader spouts off about huge job losses (correct: 95,000), another leader claims we have gained in other sectors (87,000 to date while the Conservative have been in power). That is analysis.

When Mr. Mandsbridge interviews his panel (Chant Hébert, a Quebec-centric journalist; Andrew Coyne, small 'c' conservative; Allan Gregg, Chairman of Decima Research: Pollster) and they discuss the debate, where is the objective analysis? Most journalists toe the party line of their respective media outlets. A pollster ought to be neutral and should not even be on a panel.

Once of the last questions in the debate was from someone who wondered how we can count on the politicians to do as they say they are going to do?
I heard someone say that if politicians do not do as they said during electioneering, they ought to be forced to resign, except for extreme circumstances that make this morally impossible.

A question I heard from a constituent member was, "How do I decide for whom I should vote?"
This, too, is a dilemma. We have spoken about strategic voting in my household.
I have concluded that with a local vote that might not make a difference, I must vote for the party that best promote my views of our world, the environment, and what is best for people's wellbeing, no matter their socioeconomic status.

The Conservatives ran a platform, in 2004, which they did not uphold: declined any Senate reform(a useless institution IMHO). They they lowered taxes (GST), which had little impact on my peers, with huge cut backs in services, ignored Native issues, and demonstrated leadership that cares little for the proletariat . (i.e., bourgeoisie-Harper said last night: "people aren't worried about losing jobs" shows the workers do not factor in the Conservative's mindest.) For them to cut Arts funding was an insult to every actor, audience member and artist, but if we do not have the cash to support it, should we rethink tax-based support vs. tax deductions? On the other hand, the government funds Bombardier, who also donates money to Shaw Festival. Where is the justice in that?

I think that the Arts community, big business, sports teams, all should be based on a market economy. If there is a market for it; if they build it, they will come. Tax breaks for those making a difference is another kettle of fish. But to allow corporations to take with one hand and then walk away, as they have done with the auto industry, is a terrible disservice to the people who depend upon it. Jobs are being outsourced to other countries. (If you phone a credit card company or IT department for service, you likely will talk to someone in India). Deregulation has not worked in the Airline Industry, it didn't work for the American mortgage-lending industry, and it requires further examination here. It is time to tighten up regulations that will protect Canadians, not financiers.

The Liberals & Greens want to institute a carbon tax to enforce big business to reduce carbon emissions. Unfortunately, this will effect those who cannot live and work in the same place. It will impact our food, our heat, and the lives of ordinary Canadians. I simply cannot vote for a party that promotes this notion. It is said to work well in Scandinavian countries, but they are smaller countries, with less diverse geography and populations. I resent those making big bucks off this topic promoting a cause in such a subjective way. By what right do those with position and power advocate for one issue, and ignore all the others facing Canadians? We should not be "making polluters pay", we should be stopping them from wanting to or being allowed to pollute. For Global TV to justify travelling around the country in an airplane to talk to the 'man in the street' (The People's Express) five nights in a row, and dismissing its carbon effects by buying carbon credits, is absurd. This is a mindset that must be changed.

Mr. Layton want to increase taxes for big business, which means they will leave our country tout de suite. Big business is here for profit. The government should be here for the people. I know that corporations, like WalMart, have totally screwed our economy (see the WalMart effect) and allowed investors, speculators and profits, to undermine small business owners world-wide. The lowest price merchandise and the highest returning dividends do not a strong economy make.

My dilemma is how to vote locally. I must vote for the person, but must keep in mind the party that best represents a plan that presents me and my philosophy. How do I ensure that my region (Muskoka) has a voice? There are Federal issues (Day Care, Health Care delivery and access, the environment) and having seen the impact of local town residents (who have NIMBY syndrome), local councillors decisions and actions, as well as the navel gazing of local media (who do not demonstrate unbiased reporting), and local debates which are not well-attended. There are people in my riding, as in many others, whose parents voted (pick one: Conservative, Liberal, NDP) all their lives but in this day and age we are seeing an upturn. The Green Party (Green Party Rally in Parry Sound), and according to the buzz I hear, is attracting young people who care about the environment above all else. This is good as young people have not turned out in great numbers.

My local vote will be based on which party best exemplifies my perception of the role of government in protecting people, the environment and my tax dollars. I cannot vote for the person who demonstrated the best potential leadership skills in my riding, as perceived by their performance during local debates, since I do not embrace all of their party values. My conscience weighs heavily. I do think we need electoral reform as the 'first past the post' does not work. I think, as a friend suggested, that we ought to be electing our Prime Minister in a seperate election.

BTW
I really wish that someone would teach M. Dion how to say the word environment en englaise! It would really help his campaign and his performance!

Fifth Estate does David Reiner

You must view this show, 'Disappearing Act'...
What a world in which we live. I cannot believe that this man could bilk day care centres of $800,000. That said, I cannot believe that the CBC would use taxpayer dollars to fly a man out of a country to which he has fled and in which he likely needs to be prosecuted for fraud in East Africa.

What were you thinking? The Consulate refused to fly him back here, as this violates protocol and foreign policy to protect, similarly, taxpayer dollars. How can CBC's Fifth Estate think such a move is a wise one?

Why would CBC, on our tax dollars, violate foreign policy created by duly elected officials with accountability to the public. Who would authorize this expenditure in a corporate decision for ratings, that violates Canadian policy?

Perhaps, East Africa cannot afford to summon this man to justice and put him up as he pays for the wrongs toward Africa, but he manipulated The Fifth Estate, as much as his other victims, and, therefore, Canadian taxpayers as much as those whom he directly defrauded.
~~~~~~~

Disappearing Act

OCTOBER 1, 2008

He was just an ordinary guy who stole almost a million dollars. Why?

Local election debate

All-candidates meeting in Gravenhurst
I had never been to such an event. In such a small community I felt it important to make an informed decision in the election. Torn between taking a pass on the local candidates and simply voting according to my conscience and Federal party policy, I thought I ought to get as much information as possible. As a full-time resident of the Parry Sound - Muskoka riding I thought it opportune to attend such a meeting. After attending the Green party rally, with Elizabeth May in Parry Sound, I wanted to meet the local candidates.

Candidates began with a stand-up in the basement of the Gravenhurst Opera, Oct. 1, 2008, followed by a two-hour session in the main theatre. Alphabetically, they addressed the audience in a series of 5-minute speeches. [See this YouTube channel for these: Jo-Anne Boulding (NDP), Glen Hodgson (Green Party), Tony Clement (Conservative Party), Jamie McGarvey (Liberal Party), David Rowland (Independent)!]

These speeches reflected clearly delineated party policies. Mr. Rowland's speech revolved around his plan as an independent, which mimics the Reform Party's fiscal conservative plan back in the day, to ensure voter referendum on all issues, on a current, ongoing basis.
Mr. Rowland, an independent, agreed with much of what the Greens and NDP candidates proposed.

Following this, the candidates were questioned at one of two microphones. Each question was no more than one minute; each response, addressed by all of the candidates was one-minute. I would have preferred that those at the microphone be allowed to answer the questions, and hearing what they had to say!

While Mr. Harper was being "Targeted on Crime and Economy in French Debate" en français, our local candidates were grilled on Liberal and Conservative party policies: health care, taxation, Bill C51, Dion's carbon tax, the economy, free trade, Conservative's Youth Justice reforms, and economics issues: taxation, the high cost of post-secondary tuition. One person questioned "strategic voting", and Hodgson clarified the Green's position, as did the other candidates.

No mention about Afghanistan, or other major Federal issues that concern our country, First Nations issues, Senate Reform, gun violence, in this local candidate's debate. What was interesting is that the Huntsville debate had a much more raucous tone, with Mr. Clement being queried on his absence during the listeriosis crisis.

It was a bit frustrating, since each candidate spent time responding to each question, whether it was addressed to Mr. Clement, and targeted at Mr. Harper's small $100 per family child tax (a drop in the bucket according to some), or questions aimed at the Liberal's carbon tax (which "works well in Norway"), said Mr. McGarvey several times. There wasn't enough time to entertain all of the questions by the voters at the meeting, nor to cover them here.

Metroland North Media features a video clip of our local candidates. "What would you do if you had $10,000,000 to spend?"

The Orillia Packet has some news about signage wars!

All this took place across the street from Clement's Gravenhurst offices!
~~~~~~~~~~~~