Recently, Minister of Municipal Affairs Ken Hughes announced that, despite former estimates, only 90% of DRP files would be closed at the end of March, 2014.  Then he took another step back and said "no wait, not until the end of June, now", which basically means a full year of homelessness for those affected.  Not that I'm surprised, he inherited a mess from his predecessor, Doug Griffiths.

However, in order to meet those targets, people who were already told they are going to be covered through the DRP are now being told "nevermind, no money for you."

The best example of this is the first completed DRP file in High River.  That file refers to the basement of Richard Murray.  On September 23, 2013 he was given approval to go forward with rebuilding his basement in writing.  Throughout the next two months, he rebuilt, had inspected, adjusted, continued rebuilding, inspected, and completed his basement all with great collaboration with the DRP office.  On November 23, 2013, all paperwork for his claim was considered complete, and he was given every indication that he would be given his funds.  He followed all the rules, and worked very closely and collegially with the decision-makers.

On March 11, 2014, Murray got a brief phone call saying that his DRP claim was denied in full.  When he asked why, the response was "we have no details for you."

The result is that he will no longer be an Albertan.  He will be moving to British Columbia.  What's even more telling about this is that he has dedicated decades of his volunteer service to High River, even running for the public service of Town Councillor in the last election.  In the end, the Disaster Recovery Program has run this incredibly dedicated community advocate out of town.

Why on Earth, or in Alberta, would the DRP process choose to rip this man's spleen out through his throat like that?

DRP has been changed multiple times since the first files were created.  Any file completed before the latest iteration of the DRP process will be referred to a "special review" process.  To me, this smacks of duplication; files that were already well-handled are being held back to be looked over one more, two more, seven more times.

If DRP was broken the first time, all those first files will be wrong too, right?

That's not what was broken.  The first files completed were the ones done well.  Reviewing them added a significantly unnecessary bureaucratic layer.  What was broken was the multitude of files that did not get addressed, did not have deadlines met from the government side, and did not get money in a timely fashion to the residents who desperately needed.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.  If it is broke, don't fix the pieces that work.

Hughes stepped back from his commitment to complete the DRP process to only complete 90%.  Apparently, even that target is so hard to hit, that files that were stuck in the "special review" process were simply too much to handle.

So they called Richard Murray to say "no money for you", with no further details.  The only logical conclusion is that they've done so because those details are "we just don't want to handle your file anymore."  It's the only way they'll hit that target.

And considering the political turbidity surrounding the PC Party of Alberta right now, they can't afford to miss another target.

How many other High Riverites are going to get the exact same phone call?  All the ones who did get their files started early theoretically have been living in relief.  Those who did not are the ones who are most in needed of mental health support.  Now that the ones who got their files started early are being told they are under "special review", the DRP program is now forcing even those early-starters into mental health disarray.

Just to meet a target, to save a party, to retain power.

If people can't rebuild their basements, homes and businesses, they can't move back.  Therefore, they won't shop in High River.  They won't open up shop in High River.  They won't work in High River.  They won't break bread with each other in High River.  They won't play in High River.  They certainly will have no vested interest in protecting it and rebuilding it for the future.

With this new revelation, I can confidently say High River is dying.  And right now, the easiest and most valid scapegoat is the one thing preventing residents, workers, business owners, and community builders from moving back into town.

The Disaster Recovery Program.

So my call to Ken Hughes is to completely shift his position on the completion of the DRP.  Not renewing a contract with LandLink is a good decision, but letting them keep the files they've already got is not going to solve the issue of their involvement.  The current position is forcing active files to be rammed through, and if necessary cancelled, with little to no consideration for the people and communities they directly affect.

I am asking that Hughes commit to fully fund every Disaster Recovery Program claim as property owners have been promised.  I am asking him to completely remove LandLink from the process with no exceptions.  I am asking his office take over any remaining outstanding files where no statement of coverage has been offered to the property owner.  I am also asking him to add the consideration of these two questions in the completion of those outstanding files;

• Is this going to get people home sooner? and
  
• Is this going to help High River rebuild?
  

Lastly, I’m asking that he resist every urge to shift a deadline or target date again.  Flood victims need something stable to work with, and the regular shifting of deadlines and target dates leaves them with complete instability.

Or else I fear for the future of my town.

Good news does abound, and while it took a long time, Richard Murray now has received his DRP payments.  However, he has some sage advice for all those who have dealt with DRP, and the advice does not end once you've received your cheque.  I recommend reading the article here, as it can not be said better than by the man himself.

After reading about an Innisfail school no longer willing to introduce their Grade 6 students to Question Period, I should have been shocked.

I wasn't.

I was just disappointed.

When I'm with my children in a grocery store lineup, or with my students at a fast food joint on school trip, and I hear another adult choosing inappropriate language, I politely tap them on the shoulder and ask them to choose different language, gesturing to my students.  Thankfully, they usually acquiesce.

However, for some strange reason, they didn't seem to notice the children in the public space.  Have we become so ignorant as adults that we don't recognize the opportunities we have to impact on our youth?

Not that we can't recognize when youth are around us.  We simply don't.  We choose not to pay attention.  Or at least, a select few of us don't choose to pay attention.

Our elected officials, theoretically the people who were so fine and upstanding that they managed to get thousands of Albertans to vote for them, don't.

What makes this truly downtroddenly expectoratingly disappointing is the fact that in Question Period, the guests have to be introduced.

MLAs were told the students were there.  They even waved at them.

And then they turned around and told each other they "blow and suck" and called each other out to fight.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is verbal abuse and bullying.  And we're letting it happen.  Every time we vote some of these bullies into the legislature, we're letting this verbal abuse happen.

It's like second-hand smoke.  You smoke, you damage your own body.  But don't forget, you also damage the body of those who also inhale your putrid vapours.

You call people out, name-call, swear, or otherwise bully in the legislature, you damage your own relationships.  But don't forget, there are a bunch of 10-year-olds in the gallery who also hear your colourful metaphors.

If you speak in Legislature, don't forget you're on public camera.  If there's a school in the gallery, it becomes even more obvious that you're under scrutiny.  And if you still choose to use inappropriate language and throw decorum out the window, remember this;

You've just become a child abuser.

I can't tap you on the shoulder politely to ask you to consider your surroundings.  The Speaker in the Legislature has done that plenty enough, to no avail.  I'm honestly surprised he's actually taking supplementals and questions away from members now to penalize them for poor behaviour.  But I welcome it.

But I will have a very difficult time standing for an institution that abuses children.  Even if it's second-hand abuse.

Duly elected Members of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, this is what I am asking you to do; abide by Rule #2 of the Alberta Party's Guidelines for MLAs.

"Each MLA of the Alberta Party shall ... conduct themselves in a professional manner and with integrity, including within the legislature. Alberta Party MLAs shall conduct themselves in a manner that is respectful to other members of the legislature and shall not engage in disrespectful behaviour."

There was only one other rule that the Alberta Party listed before that one, and that rule has to do with engaging in direct in-person conversation with their constituents.  Something that should be viewed as necessary, but also something you can't do effectively if you don't treat others with respect.

We need the "Honourable" members of our elected assembly to treat each other with respect and act with decorum.  Then maybe, just maybe, our youth will believe in our "Honourable" adults the way I believe in our youth.

Votes for the Conservative nominee in the Macleod riding byelection are tabulated today, and the story of the campaign is not "hopefuls listen to residents."

The entire campaign has been usurped by the National Firearms Association, Canada's version of the National Rifle Association south of the 49th parallel.  It has also been grabbed by right-wing media outlets trying to make a name for themselves in a new market.  No surprise, as the agenda had already been pushed by right-wing provincial opposition leader Danielle Smith, who represents a section of Macleod provincially.

In the middle of it all, the residents of Macleod seem to have been left out in the frigid cold of February.

The main topics discussed should have been the backlog of our bumper crops due to rail competition, oil and gas markets, and flood mitigation.  Other topics could have included innovations in our area in agriculture and small enterprise, the geographical and demographical diversity and "how can you represent people in Okotoks beside people in Crowsnest Pass or Lomond", or even the value the Conservative government places on veterans.

But they weren't.  The "High River Gun Grab" was.  And it was the only thing some candidates were talking about.

This seems odd, as every gun owner affected by the actions of the RCMP have never been unhappy about how the guns were handled, only the violent invasion of their privacy.  A valid point and an important issue, but by no means is it the only issue nomination hopefuls should be discussing.  It is also in stark contrast to the gun-toting whackadoodle image the NFA is portraying Macleod conservatives as.  Perhaps the NFA forgot about the story of the "Nose Hill Gentleman"?

Scott Wagner spoke with me twice, and seemed to have a decent grasp on the issues, and although I didn't fully agree with them, kudos goes to him for making a concerted effort to connect with me (he is a very intelligent fellow).  Phil Rowland's wife bombarded me with robocalls in the last week.  Melissa Mathieson never once contacted me.  I can't tell if I prefer Mathieson's or Rowland's tactic.

I was concerned about John Barlow at first, recalling that he ran as a Progressive Conservative candidate in the 2012 Alberta election.  I also recalled how he presented himself in those forums.  He was strong, articulate, and didn't shy from confrontation.  He did, however, leave me wondering if he could be a positive force, or if he would fall victim to the childish bickering that we now see in both provincial and federal houses.

When he called me, I asked him about how he felt the tone of his provincial campaign went.  He explained to me he was disappointed with how the Progressive Conservative party lowered themselves to the point where issues were no longer their focal point.

He hit the nail on the head.  The issues must be forefront.  And Barlow knew the major issues, and also knew some less obvious issues that matter to our residents.  Barlow is the only one of these four nomination hopefuls who did not bow to the whims of a lobby group and right-wing media.  He has his thumb on the pulse of the constituency, and stuck to talking about the issues, not just in person, but also in the media.  With regards to the NFA's focal point, he stuck to his word; he said if new information came out suggesting an inquiry was warranted, he'd stand behind it, so when it did, he stood behind it.

A politician that stands by his/her word should be considered a valuable asset.  But even more valuable is one who refuses to let lobbyists dictate the agenda, and rather let constituents dictate it.

And as a side-note, if you knew the level of discourse Barlow and his family was exposed to on his campaign Facebook page on the matter of the guns in High River, you would understand why I use the term "gun-toting whackadoodle".

So today is the last day for Conservative members to cast their ballots for their nominee.  After today, we will know if Macleod conservatives really are the gun-toting whackadoodles the NFA paints them as, or if they thoughtfully consider more than just a single issue with an eye to the future.

And I, for one, am no gun-toting whackadoodle.