Belgian police,RCMP probe ownership of RMB Resort

by Jim Moodie

MICHAEL'S BAY-For months now rumours have swirled regarding an RCMP investigation of the Royal Michael's Bay restaurant and golf course development on the Island's south shore, leading some to speculate that the facility, owned by Claire and Walter Vandroemme of Belgium, has been shut down by the authorities.

Not so, insists local operations manager Connie Freeman. When found recently at the restaurant, Ms. Freeman did allow that "the RCMP have been here," but maintained that "the investigation is unrelated to the operation of the Michael's Bay facility. It doesn't impact any day-to-day operations."

While the facility is currently closed, Ms. Freeman said this is simply a seasonal hiatus. "A lot of people are saying, 'we hear you're closed,' and think the RCMP has shut us down," she noted. "But we are fully operational-we're just closed for the season."

The manager said the plan is "to reopen for May 4," and indicated that "we are looking forward to a busy summer season, with lots of events booked."

News of the investigation began to leak out over the summer, and attempts were made by the Expositor to learn of the nature of the probe through a number of phone calls made to the RCMP headquarters in London, Ontario. The RCMP is under no obligation to divulge details of its investigations unless charges are laid, however, and Michelle Paradis, corporal of communications, reiterated last week that she could "neither confirm nor deny" that an investigation is taking place.

Reached in Belgium on Monday, owner Claire Vandroemme said "there is an investigation, due to-I don't know why. It's kind of a plot; that's what I call it." She further implied that questions about their operations might have been stirred up by someone on Manitoulin.

While the RCMP has not pressed charges, a charge has been laid by Belgian authorities. "The problem now is that Belgian police and the RCMP think we have invested too much in Canada, and we're suspected of money laundering," Ms. Vandroemme said. "But I have nothing to do with money laundering-of course not."

Ms. Vandroemme said she and her husband are currently barred from entering Canada because of the investigation, and cannot sell any of their properties-they own several in Belgium, as well as the Michael's Bay resort-without permission from the authorities. "We can sell, but if we do, the money goes into a frozen account."

Ms. Freeman elaborated that "the RCMP have a restraining order on the (Michael's Bay) property. It doesn't mean that it's been seized or that the owners are no longer in control." Were the Vandroemmes to sell their asset, or a part of it, "essentially the money would be held in trust until the court case is settled; once they're deemed innocent, the money would be released to them."

Ms. Vandroemme maintained that the money invested in the Michael's Bay resort is legitimate money earned through the stock market. "Justice is very slow, but I hope it will be settled this year," she said. "My lawyer is working on it."

In the meantime, however, the Vandroemmes are not only restricted from entering the country, but also from pursuing completion of the golf course project. "My problem is that we're searching for other investors to have the whole property developed," said Ms. Vandroemme. "But we can't continue that at the moment."

Likewise, Ms. Vandroemme said that any deal with the Michael's Bay Historical Society for acquisition of the historic town site will have to wait. "We were open to selling it, but we never received an offer," she said. "Now, for the moment, we won't sell. Maybe in the future, but first of all this whole thing should be cleared up."

Ms. Vandroemme said that "the police and RCMP want us to sell the whole thing, so they can seize it," but indicated she has no intention of selling the property.

Members of the historical society, which hopes to acquire 391 acres of the Vandroemmes' property enclosing the ghost town of Michael's Bay, backed away from making an offer on the town site last summer after learning of the RCMP investigation.

Alan Atherton of Canusa International, the consulting firm overseeing the Michael's Bay development on behalf of the Vandroemmes last year, had given the society until August 15 to make an offer, according to email correspondence acquired by the Expositor. On August 11, then-secretary (and now president) of the society, Bryan Gleason, wrote Mr. Atherton to decline the opportunity, citing "discussions with the RCMP" which had led the historical society to understand that "the manner of the purchase of the property by the current owners will soon be the subject of legal action. Therefore, we consider it unwise to make any commitment until the matter has been dealt with by the courts."

In his reply, dated August 13, Mr. Atherton brusquely wrote that "we find your explanation related to the RCMP to be very disturbing and without backup for your statements.... These are very critical statements and we wish to make sure everyone has the proper information, and actions and statements are not being made from rumours."

In October, Mr. Atherton was abruptly relieved of his duties as the Vandroemmes' developer. When contacted by the Expositor at the time, he indicated that he was "stepping back" for the time being, until some issues were sorted out, but declined to comment any further on the situation. Mr. Atherton was contacted again last week, but was in a meeting in the US at the time, and said he would phone back later. As of press time, that had not occurred.

Ms. Vandroemme said that Mr. Atherton's dismissal was unrelated to the investigation. "We had an appointment in Buffalo in October, because we couldn't enter Canada. We felt he hadn't done what he had to do, which was to make a plan for investors and for the lots to be sold. We had no results, so we could not continue on that basis."

While awaiting the outcome of the RCMP investigation, the historical society is proceeding with its campaign, launched in mid-August, to raise funds for a possible future acquisition of the historic town site. "We're still heavy on the fundraising," noted current secretary Eleanor Lentir. "We're up to about $13,000, and we've opened a bank account where the money will be held in trust, so if the deal doesn't finalize, we have full documentation if we have to return the money to people who donated."

The group received a recent boost for its cause through an article that was published on the front page of the December edition of the Ontario Historical Society (OHS) monthly bulletin, titled "Michael's Bay Historical Society needs help to save historic town site."

The article, penned by an uncredited Mr. Gleason, notes that if the society "can raise $180,000, the developer from Belgium who owns the land will sell them the 391 acres which incorporates Manitoulin's only ghost town. This is the first stage of a project which will see a museum developed as well as a re-creation of part of the town."

The article further indicates that "it is believed that there are five burial sites within the town plot, and the society would like to fence and register these plots as well as mark the location of the mills and other significant structures. The site could become a unique tourist attraction and provide access to the landlocked Blue Jay Creek Provincial Park."

The town site proper, straddling the mouth of the Manitou River, spans just 50 acres in total, but the society is hoping to acquire a full 391 acres-encompassing 'mill site A and B,' as marked on the original survey-as this larger parcel would take into account all the cemeteries believed to exist in the area, as well as provide a buffer of park land.

Former historical society president and current board member Ed Sagle noted that the article in the OHS bulletin has already resulted in several new donations being made to the kitty for possible purchase of the land. "We think that one way or another, the part we're interested in will be on the market eventually, and we're hoping we have enough money available when it does," he said.

Manor upkeep costs going up; municipalities express concern

by Tom Sasvari

MINDEMOYA-Municipalities across the Island are bracing for higher contributions to the Manitoulin Centennial Manor, as the reorganizing long-term care facility considers a two-year contract with Jarlette Health Management Services.

At least one municipality, however, feels that a business and financial plan must be closely studied before any long-term management agreement is signed.

"Our Office and Administration Committee wants to see these plans for the long-term basis, because they (Jarlette) are already under contract  on a short-term basis," stated Richard Stephens, reeve of Central Manitoulin.

"I'd like to see that (resolution) sent in soon," said Councillor Harold McCutcheon, who, later in the meeting, turned over his position as municipal representative on the Manor board to Mr. Stephens.

Council moved that "a letter be written to the Manitoulin Centennial Manor Board stating that council has concerns with the ongoing financial state of the Manor, and that council would like to see a business and financial plan before signing any long-term management agreement with Jarlette."

After a meeting of Manor board representatives, Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care representatives and Island municipal representatives earlier last week, members of the Manitoulin Municipal Association (MMA) discussed the issue last Thursday.

"I understand that, with the Manor's troubles, they have hired Jarlette to oversee the operations, and the municipalities are paying the costs of this," said Pat Best, Gordon Township councillor.

"We (municipalities) received a briefing. But there were no financial figures, or final decisions made to hire Jarlette on a long-term basis," said Mr. Stephens.

"Once a facility like the Manor goes under a ministry enforcement because of deficiencies, and a company like Jarlette is hired, the costs are the responsibility of the municipalities," said Hugh Moggy, an Assiginack Township councillor.

Ken Noland, reeve of Burpee and Mills Township, pointed out Jarlette had been hired for two months, and this would be part of the costs the municipalities would have to pay.

"We were not able to talk about the Manor finances at the meeting," said Carrie Lewis, a Gore Bay councillor.

"I know after we came out of the meeting, a lot of the municipal representatives were saying that maybe we should be taking steps to privatize the Manor," said John Bright, a Billings Township councillor.

Gary Green, chair of the Manor Board, told the Expositor in an interview last Friday, "what I can tell you is the board is working on a letter of intent with Jarlette to February 6. By then we hope to have a full contract drawn up and signed by Jarlette and the board for a two-year (contract) term. And we hope to have a meeting with the municipalities once the audit and draft budget is done to get the municipalities' representatives in, explain the current situation and what the contract would entail over the next two years." He said this meeting should take place in the next two weeks, if everything goes as expected.

"The board wants to get all this information, including clarifying the financial situation, as soon as possible, especially with municipalities looking at their budgets for this year," said Mr. Green. He acknowledged that "the costs are going to be an eye-opener for all funding municipalities when this is all brought to the table."

"The reality is we have to look after our seniors; we all have relatives, friends, someone we know in the Manor," said Mr. Green. "A lot of these seniors were the pioneers of the Island and led the way to making the Island a place we all now enjoy living on, and we have to look after them. That is the bottom line. The better we can make the facility work, the better."

"Obviously everyone is concerned about the costs, and there will be significant increases over last year," said Mr. Green. He pointed out the Town of Northeastern Manitoulin and the Islands (NEMI) has drafted a budget which would include a proposed, substantial  increase over its share of funding to the Manor, if the budget is accepted.

The town paid a share of $82,000 to the Manor in its budget last year. This year, according to Dave Williamson, chief administrative officer for the town, "we're budgeting $150,000." The CAO noted that "this is not based on any firm figures, but we're aware there are some financial issues at the Manor so we're budgeting to make sure we have sufficient money for a potential increase."

"The proposed increase shows how much the town values the Manor, and is willing to provide for the community and in support of the Manor," said Mr. Green.

At the meeting of Central Manitoulin council, resigning Manor board rep Harold McCutcheon was congratulated by Reeve Stephens for "doing a very good job on the board, with all the meetings and going back and forth,and we really appreciate this."

However, Mr. McCutcheon told council, "I've found it to be so frustrating, I've kind of lost interest in being a board member. We have meeting after meeting and never seem to accomplish anything. Maybe Richard (Stephens), with your expertise in finances, you might consider taking my place on the board. I feel I'm just floundering in the wind as a board member, and I'm not a financial expert."

"I don't feel think you should feel you haven't had a useful purpose on the board," said Mr. Stephens, but Mr. McCutcheon maintained the reeve would be in a better position to deal with the current situation at the facility. "There are still quite a few changes to be made at the Manor, and the board is going to need as many people as they can with good financial expertise."

N.E. Town calls for supervised union vote

by Lindsay Kelly

NORTHEAST MANITOULIN-Talks between the Northeast Town and the CEP union broke off last Friday afternoon, after only a day of negotiations arbitrated by a Labour Relations Board mediator. But the town is now exercising its option to hold a supervised vote in an effort to convince the union employees to accept its latest offer.

Talks with a mediator were scheduled to take place on January 26 and 27 in Little Current. Representatives of the town and the union both expressed hope that the meeting would renew discussion between the two factions and bring a resolution to the 18-week-old labour dispute. Talks proceeded until about 11 pm on Thursday evening, but ended early the next afternoon.

Union representative Fred Bond said he was initially optimistic about the talks, but that optimism was dashed when the town presented a final offer to the union, which he says is essentially the same contract that has been presented to the union in the past, and one which the workers have voted on three times, and are unwilling to accept.

"I was disappointed because I thought the talks were going well on Thursday, and it looked like they were prepared to talk, but mediations shut down on Friday," he said.

The talks had started, and both the mediator and the bargaining unit members were prepared to take the discussions into the weekend, but when the town put forth an "ultimatum"-to accept the contract or not-that put the talks on hold, he added.

While all Northeast Town councillors were invited to attend the negotiations, only Councillor Jim Stringer went. He has been the voice of dissent throughout the negotiations, putting forth a motion proposing an end the strike before Christmas. He attended the negotiations to see for himself how talks were going, and described the process as "frustrating."

Once talks broke down, "it was very clear on our side we were not prepared to negotiate at all," he said, adding, "but the process doesn't happen overnight."

He said he was embarrassed, and found it "just kind of sad" when the town's bargaining committee wasn't willing to return throughout the weekend to continue negotiations.

From the experience, he said, he concluded that either the town's bargaining committee "doesn't know what it's doing," or "the stories I've heard from people concerned that the town is trying to bust the union are true."

Councillor Stringer commended Mr. Bond for his calm, professional approach to bargaining, and suggested the town's bargaining committee would have to set aside its ego to come to a resolution that would satisfy both sides.

"I know it appears that I'm pro-union, but I honestly want to see a resolution, because the town is hurting," he said.

Mayor Joe Chapman said he believes the town offered the union a very fair offer, one which he is surprised has not been accepted.

"It was very difficult for me to get council to make these concessions with the union," he said. "It took a lot of work to get this offer together, so I hope both sides, in particular, the union, will consider a resolution."

In particular, he believes the five-year, three-percent-per-year wage increase is a big concession. In fact, the three-percent-per-year wage increase is a demand the union was requesting from the start of the dispute.

The 23-page document addresses everything from contracting out and job security to scheduling and employee benefits, but it still does not address issues that most concern the union, Mr. Bond explained.

One major issue that remains is the ability of staff to do 'bargaining unit' work, he stressed. This includes former bargaining unit members who accepted management positions with the town after the start of the strike, some of which are now doing their former jobs but in a management capacity.

He noted that those employees who did take on management roles were not replaced with bargaining unit employees. On this, Mr. Bond said the union would be happy to retain the status quo, which allowed management to do no more than 12 hours of union work per week. In the town's contract, only the recreation director and the roads superintendent are limited to doing 12 hours of 'bargaining unit' work per week.

"As long as our people were working, and had the ability to work, we were happy," he said.

The mayor agreed this is still a point of contention between the two sides.

"That point had risen as a result of members of the bargaining unit leaving the union," he said. "I think it's a sore point with the union, and we tried to get around it by granting full-time people job security."

About seven people crossed the picket line to accept positions with the town, and the mayor believes the union has "harboured negative feelings about the whole thing."

Council, he noted, is attempting to save $10,000 per month in wages, which is a position that greatly appeals to council. And, he said, it is unlikely that extra workers will be hired to replace those that cross the picket line, since council is attempting to reduce the numbers of employees through attrition.

But, he noted, the part-time workers currently on strike are making more in wages on the picket line than they would in their normal positions, so the mayor believes those workers have less of an incentive to go back to work, and it would be "very difficult" to get them to agree to a contract that allots them eight to 15 hours of work per week, when they are making more while on strike.

A second issue is the town retaining the right to contract out for services. The town already had this option, so in offering this to the union now, the town isn't really bringing anything new to the table, Mr. Bond said. In fact, he believes there is less in the current offer than what the town was offering before on this matter.

"They're taking some of what we already had out," he noted. "We've lost protection in certain areas."

As to job security, Mayor Chapman believes the five-year job guarantee promised to all full-time employees is a huge concession for the town, which he describes as "iron-clad; there are no ifs, ands or buts about it. It was a pretty big move on our part. Nobody (employees at other businesses) gets that."

It will guarantee that no-one working under the contract will be laid off over the next five years. But it was a concession that was frowned upon by the town's legal counsel.

Job security has been the union's main request throughout the strike, but, noted Mr. Bond, only current, full-time workers are covered in the contract, and the contract makes no guarantees for part-time positions. The union is seeking "protection of union jobs, not just people," he said.

All the union would like to see is a change in the language, which comes at "no cost to the town," Mr. Bond pointed out, and he believes that the agendas of a few councillors looking to "break the union" are getting in the way of proper negotiating to find a solution. He believes there could have been a resolution as early as November 18, with both parties coming away happy.

"How is the situation still about strike issues?" he asked. "The community has to ask why we are on strike."

Mr. Bond also believes the town is confusing the issue by insisting that there are two parties with whom they must negotiate (the workers, independent of the union; and the bargaining committee), and he rejects the idea that he is somehow interfering in the negotiations.

"My role is to negotiate on behalf of the workers, not to push my agenda on them," he said. "They (the town) forget their job, and that is to find a solution."

In lieu of a resolution to last week's negotiations, the town is calling for a 'supervised vote,' as is the one-time option of either side, which would see a representative from the Ontario Labour Relations Board monitor a vote on the latest contract from the town.

The representative would run the poll, prepare the ballots and supervise the actual voting process, and the town and the union would each be permitted to have a scrutineer present. Mayor Chapman said he believe the union members should have the opportunity to vote on the contract in a neutral setting and "exercise their right to vote for or against the contract." Union employees might feel more confident voting if they know their opinions are being kept confidential.

"They may reject it, but I hope they don't," he said. "We'd like to see them back to work."

Mr. Bond responded by noting that all the votes held by the union are confidential, so the supervised vote would be no different. He added that the town shouldn't expect a positive result, since the workers' committee will be recommending a rejection of the offer. But, he noted, the union will vote and he will abide by their decision.

Cutting it awfully close: Ice fisherman took advantage of a balmy winter's day on Saturday, to pile onto the ice at Swift Current seeking nature's bounty. While most of the intrepid crew kept well back from the water's edge, some seemed to want to push fate to the limit-parking a hut within feet of the icepack's brink.

photo by Michael Erskine

EDITORIAL

Sides in strike should submit to binding arbitration

The sign on the picket line in front of the Northeast Town offices read '125 days' as staff at the Expositor made their way into the office on Monday to put together today's paper. That is 125 days during which unionized workers have been off the job; 125 days that the workers' families have had to struggle along on strike pay; 125 days that the management of the Northeast Town have had to pull extra duty to keep the municipality's essential services running; 125 days of untold strain on managers' health and the well-being of the families of both management and workers alike.

It has been 125 days that families in the community have been pitted against each other as they take one side or the other, as even families themselves have been torn by disagreement over who is right and who is wrong in this dispute.

For over four months the pages of the Expositor have been filled with the duelling riposte of both sides as they battle through these labour negotiations, unable to strike a deal despite the best intentions of each side's negotiators. At 'best case' scenario, it will be over five months before any deal between the two sides can be inked, even with an arbitrator, and nobody, at this point, is holding their breath believing the two sides can ever bridge the chasm between their positions by themselves.

Should the Ministry-supervised vote find both sides still locked in an impasse, the Northeast Town and the union representing their workers should submit to binding arbitration. It is abundantly clear that both Mayor Joe Chapman and union rep Fred Bond have gone out on a limb to try to resolve this issue-but all of their efforts have come to nought. It is long past time for both sides to recognize that fact and put their faith in the hands of a disinterested third party.

Clearly both sides are not going to get what they want in these negotiations, and no matter which side one may believe is right, it is also clear that neither is going to be forced to bow to the will of the other. Positions seem to have become so intransigent that it may be impossible for either side to 'back down' sufficiently to find a negotiated resolution.

It is time to get our people back to work and to begin to heal the rifts this dispute has torn in the fabric of our community.

It is over 125 days past due.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

So-called 'Friends' use fear-mongering tactic

Common sense is community sense

To the Expositor:

I see in the Expositor of January 25 ("Landowners' association chapter established on Manitoulin") that the so-called Friends of Manitoulin, not content with bringing in an outside agitator from Lanark County last year, have decided to align themselves with an off-Island pressure group. These are the same friendly folks who have boasted that they would rather bulldoze their land than honour the right of another species to use it as habitat, or allow other people to enjoy it in non-destructive ways.

Ironically enough, this group claims to be protecting the Island against outside interests. But this is just another example of the fear mongering tactic typically used by private-interest groups to throw their political weight around. In reality, this group seems to represent the same kind of shortsighted interests that cut down most of the Island forests and shipped them off to Chicago.

Fortunately, most of my fellow landowners whom I've met on the Island don't share these myopic views. So I thought it was time someone said a word for the silent majority who have a broader and deeper vision of the Island heritage, and who know that common sense is community sense.

I am a relative newcomer, an Islander for only six years. But the hard core of the MP3 group don't seem to realize that they, too, are relative newcomers. Other peoples, and before them other species, have inhabited this land for hundreds and thousands of years, long before any of us showed up to claim it as private property. These 'privateers' are equally blind to the rights of all those who will live here in the future, especially their right to a healthy ecosystem.

Having seen the strong-arm tactics employed against those who would speak for the protection of this Island heritage, I considered withholding my name from this letter-for a second or two. But that would only contribute to the atmosphere of fear which this group seeks to foster. So I will only say this to the MP3/OLA members: go ahead and advertise your dedication to your private interests, the more visibly the better. Build all the walls you want-it will help the rest of us to respect your desire for isolation. All we ask is that you respect our community values in return.

Gary Fuhrman

Honora Bay

Prov marina needs to improve, not cut back

Why not grow opportunities for youth?

To the Expositor:

For the past 35 years I have visited your great Island and enjoyed every visit. In recent years I have joined a hunt club in Meldrum Bay, so I become a regular ever November. As well, I visit the Island by boat each July for my summer vacation. The Island offers a great balance between farming (I was raised on a farm), mining, commercial fishing, and tourism. It is a splendid place, clean compared to southern Ontario, except for the havoc wreaked by the overpopulation of cormorants. Nevertheless, I stop over in Providence Bay every summer and stay at the town dock.

Herein lies my frustration. You must understand that few boaters visit Providence Bay, because they are not aware of what it offers. Its not even listed "Boating Ontario" guide. Next, the facilities-or the lack of them-help keep the boaters away. The Providence Bay docks do not offer electricity, fuel, nor running water. The docks are in much need of revamping, and the breakwall has needed repair for decades. As well, to add insult to injury, the local council decide to reduce they cost of trucking waste water away by shutting down the showers.

It's hard for me to understand the mindset of that group, when you see that other communities on Manitou an Island are developing their facilities. As an example, Little Current is in the process of expanding their docks and services. Gore Bay had the insight to take the deal offered by Whitely and now have lots of extra docks for boaters. Meldrum Bay is in the process of putting in a new breakwall and marina. To say nothing of the developments at Spanish, Blind River and Hilton Beach. Instead of shutting off the hot water, would it not be better to charge more? With the extra money, the township could improve the facilities. Why not increase the revenue, and grow the opportunities for the youth-instead of exporting them to Toronto?

Roy G. Ferguson

Mississauga

Seniors under 65 face low-income challenges

Take our seniors off welfare!

To the Expositor:

Poverty among seniors is a serious issue in our province. And a little known fact is that often the poorest seniors are those who are just under 65: those on social assistance. There are two forms of social assistance for people in Ontario with no income. One is Ontario Works (OW), more commonly known as welfare, for people who are considered "employable," or able to work. A single person on Ontario Works receives today (even with the recent 3 percent rise) a maximum of $536 per month to live on. The second form of social assistance is the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP). This benefit is for people who are severely restricted in their ability to work, usually for health reasons. A single person on ODSP receives a maximum of $958 per month to live on, a much higher amount than OW.

Before 1998, the Ontario government recognized that for people who were over 60 and without income or work, it was often unrealistic to expect them to find employment, as most employers are not interested in hiring people at that age. Thus people over 60 without income were automatically eligible for ODSP (at that time called Family Benefits) and could receive a maximum benefit (at that time) of $930 per month. When the Harris government came to power, they changed the law so that people were now considered "employable" right up until the age of 65. This means that, contrary to before, people over 60 with no income had to go on Ontario Works and live on (at that time) $520 per month, right up until their 65th birthday. This is how the law still stands today.

Community Legal Clinics across the province are participating in a campaign called "Take our Seniors Off Welfare" and are attempting to get this law changed to what it was before 1998, so that people over 60 in need of financial assistance would qualify automatically for ODSP once again. The government needs to recognize that people over 60 face particularly large barriers finding employment. Employers do not usually like to hire people of this age. This is particularly true for people whose work history involves physically demanding jobs, such as construction or factory work. Furthermore, given that many people in their 60s face health problems, living on such a low income is particularly detrimental to their health and well-being.

We urge you to write, email or fax our MPP, Mike Brown, and ask that this law be reversed.

Susan Mullen, community legal worker

Manitoulin Legal Clinic

Dear Dave and Beth,

I haven't been married for very long. Just about two years coming up this May.

I am feeling a bit confused. How do I tell if I am in a happy marriage or not?

Sometimes I feel happy and other times I feel sad. Any advice for me?

Sincerely,

Muddled in Mindemoya

Dear Muddled,

The first indication that your marriage may not be as happy as you might like would be the fact you are questioning it! There is no such thing as the perfect marriage, it takes a lot of hard work on both people's part. First ask yourself is this something recent, or have you always felt this way? Then consider the fact that the so-called "honeymoon" stage may be ending; if this is the case, then perhaps both of you need to figure out a way to make each other happy in different ways. I am not saying that it will always be happy times-that is not possible and very unrealistic. After all, it is for better or worse, richer or poorer. Keep this in mind, and don't give up! This is still a new marriage so you are probably still getting to really know each other, the good and the bad sides of each other.

-Dave with the Mrs.'s help

Dear Muddled,

If you are questioning whether you are happy or not in your marriage, then you're obviously not. But that doesn't mean that you're not in love with your wife. I'm sure when you first started dating that you were very happy and you knew then that you wanted to make her your wife. But as the days, months and years go by, you are going to drift apart a bit. Try to look back on the fun times and try to recreate that to put a little fizzle back into the marriage. It's not unusual to feel the way you do, just don't concentrate on being unhappy and try to fix the fizzle.

-Beth

Dear Dave and Beth,

My boyfriend is really nice to be with and we get on very well. He is a smart guy but he swears a lot. I've told him that it bugs me, but he just tells me to get a life. He thinks that it doesn't matter if he swears or not. He says it makes no 'diff' in the long run. His parents are good examples and they don't swear and they are all churchgoers even. Any ideas?

Miffed at MSS

Dear Miffed,

The first thing that you need to consider, is that if you really care about this person, then unfortunately the things that you like about him and the things you don't like so much are a part of the package. Everyone has faults, some more than others, and sometimes they are hard to overlook. Your boyfriend's swearing is a bad habit, and unfortunately, one he does not see as a problem. Don't think for a moment that you will be able to change this; if he is unwilling then it is something you will have to either grin and bear or do what you feel is right for you. After all, it is just an annoying habit. On the other hand, the Mrs. and I have been married for 25 years and I had lots of bad habits when we started and swearing is the only habit she hasn't got me broke of yet (not from lack of trying). But that would make me perfect and we all know nobody's perfect.

-Dave with the Mrs.'s help

Dear Miffed,

Anyone that knows me knows that I can curse like a sailor, but I also control my language a lot more now than I did when I was a teenager. Now that I have a young son, he keeps me in line and I find myself making up words to replace swear words-shoot, fridge, etc. But if I slip up in front of Bryce, he automatically will correct me. Try to borrow someone's kid every now and then.

-Beth

Send your Dear Dave and Beth letters to Box 369, Little Current, Ont., P0P 1K0, or email them to editor@etown.net. Letters can also be dropped through the slot on the front door of the Expositor office.

Send your Dear Dave letters to Box 369, Little Current, Ontario, P0P 1K0,