Residents of the Hampton Hills in High River continue to be victimized, but not just by flood waters or sewage backup, but by the Alberta Government.

17 months ago, I attended a meeting in a small room with a number of residents from that neighbourhood and others from the nearby Sunrise community to discuss their ongoing issues with flood recovery with MLA Danielle Smith.

Smith then said that the government needed to fix this, and they need to get it done right.  They simply haven’t, and Albertans are now suffering through yet another loss.

The homes regrew mould, only a year after the Alberta Government spent $45 million on a contract with Tervita to remediate them, among other things. Now many are being torn down, and those that aren’t are left with vacant lots dotting their neighbourhood.

It’s not Tervita’s fault. They were placed in a no-win situation. The onus is on the Alberta Government to help these people the first time, and they didn’t.

10 days ago, Alberta Party Leader Greg Clark called on Premier Jim Prentice to show leadership and take an active role to resolve DRP claims. I'm glad to see Prentice answer that call as he makes his way to High River to discuss the issues with that town’s Disaster Recovery Program Advocacy Committee.

But simply resolving claims might not be enough, especially when resolved claims seem to be inadequate, so much so that people keep going back to appeals. These people have been victimized time and time again by the Alberta Government. Mr. Prentice must show he values Albertans and their contributions, and correct the wrongs this PC government has caused.

I'm calling on Prentice to put Albertans first, especially these less fortunate, and provide them with adequate compensation to return to a life of normalcy.  This meeting with the DRP Advocacy Committee this weekend, along with Municipal Affairs representatives and PC MLA Danielle Smith is a perfect opportunity to get this done right.

Smith has been having "high level"  meetings about this, apparently.  What the product of those meetings will be is yet to be seen.  However, she had a high-profile meeting 17 months ago, complete with cameras and reporters.  She heard these concerns, and even then residents knew that these homes should not be remediated.  They should have been razed.  I know this, because I was there.  If her high-profile meetings didn't produce fruit, why should we expect her high level meetings to be any different?

Any movement forward has been at the hands of volunteers on the DRP Advocacy Committee in High River.  We must also acknowledge the hard work and effort to bring awareness to these issues by the Disaster Recovery Program Advocacy Committee, and I strongly believe they already know the best method forward.

The fact that a committee was required to intervene on behalf of people dealing with DRP is disturbing, but these committee members have done an amazing job at keeping the awareness up, and the hope alive. No other representative, even our MLA, has been able to do that.

So now it falls to Mr. Prentice to listen to these advocates.  Solutions are possible, but as has been said by many others, "it's going to take some political will to do it."

I expect that when Prentice meets with the committee this weekend, he will have to make some politically difficult decisions about how to help these residents and others in limbo with the DRP process move forward.  Decisions that the PCs have avoided for 17 months.

These decisions would show a will to help the least fortunate Albertans, so he must make them, and he must make them now. Only then can these residents truly recover.

So I could talk about the floor crossing and the embattled Wildrose Party today, but I've got a better idea.

Let's talk policy.

The Wildrose-proposed amendments to Bill 202 make absolutely no sense to me.

The first time I heard about Gay-Straight Alliances (GSAs) from a political perspective was from Danielle Smith, leader of the Wildrose Party.

It was during a scheduled meeting with her immediately after the Wildrose voted against protecting their existence in schools.  She sought out my opinion as a Catholic school teacher about them.

My response was that any initiative that promotes respect and dignity for every person is an initiative that any Christian should want to get behind.  I also suggested that at no time could I fathom a faith-based school saying "no" to a group of kids who want to take that initiative on themselves.

A Christian school (Catholic or not) should want to encourage the teaching that every child is made in the image of God.  A Christian school should also encourage the teaching that we are to love one another as we love God.  A Christian school should also encourage the teaching that the only judgement that truly matters is the one by God, and even if someone makes a poor decision, they are still a child of God and eligible for His forgiveness.  A Christian school should also encourage that we fight for the right of every individual to be treated with respect and dignity, regardless of circumstance.

My school teaches that.  I have been given stories of other faith-based schools that don't, but I'm convinced that most faith-based schools teach that.

So when the Wildrose presents amendments to Laurie Blakeman's Bill 202 suggesting that such initiatives should not be forced upon faith-based schools, I ask "why not?"

If a Christian school is really worried about the term "Gay-Straight Alliance", then it's likely they already have an issue with acceptance among students in their school.  It's such a school that may need a GSA the most.  And if students in the school are comfortable enough, or brave enough, with even suggesting its existence then the school needs to embrace it.

Nothing in a Christian school is unteachable.  In fact, in order for faith to truly develop, it must be challenged. By questioning one's faith, that faith can become stronger. By that very point, in a Christian school everything must be taught, especially the tools students need to strengthen their own convictions and faith. In that way they can understand the facts as they exist, and cultivate a belief system around those facts. The one thing that is most destructive to faith is a lack of action in it. By not challenging your faith, you take no action in it.

So what the Wildrose is in effect asking Christian schools to do is not allow their kids to challenge their faith, and therefore not grow in their faith.  That should upset the parents of those kids, as well as any faith leader they interact with.

I further don't understand why the Wildrose seems to be so adamant about making teachers inform parents of conversations about sexuality, sexual health and religion.  If the spirit of this is to simply keep parents informed, that is an expectation of teachers anyway, so the legislation is redundant.

However, if the spirit of this is to give parents the opportunity to limit their kids education, why not force teachers to also send a note home if they are discussing gender inequality, race or evolution?  If a parent is prejudiced against the First Nations, why not afford them the opportunity to exclude their kids from instruction about them?  If a parent truly believes that the role of a female is to be a servant to their male partner, why not afford them the opportunity to exclude their kids from instruction that promotes the authority of women?  If a parent is prejudiced against the First Nations, why not afford them the opportunity to exclude their kids from instruction about them, or even moreso simply force a school to put their kids in classes with no First Nations students?  If a parent doesn't believe in the scientifically proven concept of evolution, why not afford them to exclude their kids from such instruction (which would basically take them out of every Science class ever).

Eventually we'll see notes being sent home before discussing with students appropriate attire, and kids being removed from school because parents don't believe in sparkly clothing.

At which point, why doesn't the Wildrose just suggest an amendment that befits "ALL" issues Alberta students might be subjected to.  They seemed to be rather content with that definition at their most recent AGM.

Then teachers will be forced under the Alberta Human Rights Act to send a letter to parents before each and every class.  What else would the Wildrose like to see micromanaged?

The issues the Wildrose have to face right now have absolutely nothing to do with who jumps ship when.  It has everything to do with their actions.  And as they recently touted, their actions speak louder than their words.

It is becoming obvious we have an Education Minister that is running amock.  Parents should be freaking out right about now; any and all conversation about their child's education has come to a screeching halt.

Just over a week ago, Jeff Johnson, our self-righteous Education Minister, ordered all 62 school boards in our province to send him details about teachers whose discipline didn't make it to the Alberta Teachers' Association.

In a nutshell, he's asked for any complaint registered against any teacher, and every action taken afterward, over the past 10 years.

And he gave school boards 2 weeks to get it done.  Just as many staff members take an earned summer break, and all remaining are busy trying to compile final examination and enrolment data.

If I had to cook supper in 5 minutes, unless I have leftovers, I wouldn't do it.  I'd go get fast food instead, regardless of its diminished nutritional value.

So, Minister Johnson, if you're really wanting a decent amount of data to chew on, are you going to settle for leftovers, or be okay with fast food?

No?  Then why are you giving your chefs such a short timeline to cook something up?

When it comes to fast food, I have no idea what goes into it.  Does my hot dog include bone dust swept up off the factory floor?  How much sugar is in my ketchup?  How much of that seasoning is MSG and how much of it is salt?  Did someone spit in my burger for making such a ridiculous request?

How much irrelevant yet personal and private employment data is going to get swept up off the factory floor and mixed into this hot dog of a report that Johnson is supposed to get?  Oh, and he's supposed to eat, then digest, 62 hot dogs.  Something's going to get regurgitated that shouldn't be.

This is a most valid concern, considering the Privacy Commissioner just laid the smack down on Johnson for doing exactly that; regurgitating something he was not even supposed to have access to; teachers' private emails.  Johnson's complete lack of an apology, rationalized by saying "next time I'll get permission", shows to the ATA there is no intention of ever protecting their private information.  So it makes sense that the ATA has again asked the Privacy Commissioner to get involved and tell Johnson to back down on this most recent order.

These concerns were echoed by the Alberta School Boards Association, so when you have multiple Educational partners expressing concern, shouldn't that give the Minister pause?

The other concern that the ATA has expressed is that none of the hot dog is Jeff Johnson's to demand, bone dust and all.  School boards employ teachers, not the Minister.  His response is somewhat troublesome;

"School boards serve at the pleasure of the minister and the minister can dissolve a school board."

So now the school boards, whether they agree with him or not, know what the expectation is in the future.  Give Johnson your homework, or he'll smack you around.

By the way, did you know most schools have an anti-bullying policy of some sort?

Funny thing is, Johnson is suggesting the ATA told him to get this information, when in fact, the ATA said in effect "not you, anybody but you".  What the ATA said was that stories Johnson has heard about teachers not getting disciplined were unsubstantiated, and that evidence was needed, but that Johnson should remain impartial and not be in charge of it himself.

He should have listened to them.  What he has now done by ordering the boards to get this information for him is tacitly suggested that his baby, the Taskforce on Teaching Excellence, didn't do their research.  If they had, he wouldn't need to ask for this information, he'd already have it.

So why laud the Taskforce so much when he was just going to debunk it by his own actions anyway?  Because it's never actually been about Education, it's been about Jeff Johnson.

Three episodes ago I was asked in comments what I thought the end game for Johnson was.  Why would he do all this?

Firstly, it's very possible that the process for intervention in teacher conduct or practice could be tweaked to make the system even better.  In my discussions recently with a school division leader, I would say there is an appetite for an improvement to the process.

But the end does not justify the means.  You cannot justify making an adversary out of the ATA by saying "it's just to improve process".  In discussions with ATA spokespeople, I'd say the ATA would have been open to improving process, had they just been included in it.

Besides that, the ATA aren't the only teachers in the province (despite their best efforts).  So where is Johnson's efforts to measure process in charter or private schools?

No, this is not why Johnson is doing all this.  Johnson is looking out for numero uno.  And to be clear, the students have not been numero uno from the start.

It only makes sense that Johnson was, at one time, hoping his gall would land him a high-ranking spot under the next leadership.  It's obvious that Johnson thinks that will be under Jim Prentice's leadership.  That's why even after Prentice rebuked Johnson, Johnson stuck to flying the Prentice banner.  He's hoping there's another portfolio of equal or greater importance waiting for his heavy-hand.  And with current Premier David Hancock doing nothing to stop the bleeding, Johnson is getting tacit approval, if not encouragement.

And what if Prentice doesn't reward Johnson for his bull-headed approach?  Well there is always another party flag to wave, instead.  So what party would sympathize with such anti-union activities?

Danielle Smith and I crossed paths at Canada Day celebrations once again.  She asked me the exact same question; why would Johnson do all this.  After going through option 1 as I already have here, I suggested that he's prepping himself to cross the floor.  "To who?" she asked.

My smirk was my response.  She laughed, and her aide told me that my "outside view" was bizarre.  I asked why it was so bizarre when their colleague Rob Anderson has already endorsed Johnson publicly.  Smith was surprised, almost to the point of disbelief, until I told her I could forward her the link.  She shrugged, and conceded the fact that Anderson and Johnson were "friends" at one point in time.

It would be a significant surprise if Johnson hasn't at least looked up the Wildrose Party's Member Approved Policy.  He has been posturing himself perfectly to support it's Education Policy (Section III, Subsection B, Clause 6).  Interestingly, this clause shows just as much research into teacher accountability as the Taskforce on Teaching Excellence - you know, the one Johnson himself just debunked.

It's clear Johnson is setting himself up to go to wherever the winning party is.  And right now, students aren't it.

What's worse, is that while we have 2 more months of waiting to find out what the new PC leader will do, that party has already had a chance to muzzle it's dog.  Even if the PC party were to get someone more amicable and constructive in the Education Ministry, it'll take them at least 2 years to dig themselves out of this mess.  And then we'll be into a provincial election.  Students will have not been the focal point for this government's entire term.

Yup, parents should be freaking out right about now.  Until there is a party with a strong Education Policy, supported by consultation with the public, backed by research, that will work with all stakeholders as opposed to against, with their primary focus on students, governing our province, parents should continue to be freaking out.

Spoiler alert.

For those of you who don't know, "tatlo" is the number 3 in Tagalog.

Parents should be freaking out right about now.  Even though we’ve had issues including Jeff Johnson’s insertion into Alberta Education, and the calculated release of the grossly uninformed Task Force on Teacher Excellence, the reason parents should have first started freaking out was introduced to us even earlier.  As one very prolific Edmonton Journal columnist calls it, this reason is/was the “Great Canadian Math Debate”.

Since Ralph Klein was Premier, every four years Education, and particularly Teachers, get attacked.  Interestingly enough, it always happens to land at exactly the halfway point between elections.  Two years after the 2008 election, teachers were in a battle to get the raise they were guaranteed in a province-wide agreement led by the Premier Ed Stelmach.  Then as they approached election season, the government offered some concessions to Teachers in hopes that they have a short memory.  Unfortunately, Teachers do.  Two years after the 2012 election, again Teachers are in a battle against the government, and now the battle even includes the Official Opposition.  What concessions should we expect from the government during the 2016 election that they won’t claw back in 2018?  Is the Wildrose, widely viewed as the next government, any different when they have joined in the attack themselves?

First, Dr. Nhung Tran-Davies expressed a concern in a poorly-worded change.org petition (I originally dismissed it based on this very issue).  It was rooted in the idea that Alberta students perform poorly on international tests in mathematics.  It got a little attention.  Then the Wildrose adopted it for talking points, Dr. Tran-Davies got an editor to correct (although not completely) the petition, and it developed into a “debate” pressed by the Official Opposition and a couple of very outspoken media personalities.  The points of the "debate"; that the Alberta Government is trying to shift all of Education to an unproven “discovery” approach and is forcing instruction to ignore “basics” in math.

"Discovery" and "debate" are in quotation marks, because in actual fact both terms are misleading.  The term "discovery" means to learn something for the first time.  At which point, all learning is "discovery" learning.  The term we should be using is "inquiry", which is more about investigating for understanding.  The term "debate" connotes dialogue.  There isn't much of that happening, mostly it's just a bunch of announcements of opinions.  I should note that this blog does not constitute a dialogue, and therefore doesn't contribute much to the idea of "debate" either, but when in Rome...

The myths involved in this “debate” are plentiful.  The problem is, nobody is debunking them completely (although some have approached it).  So here is my attempt, finally, at doing just that.

Myth: 
The title of “Dr.” means that you are an expert in everything.
Fact:
Dr. Nhung Tran-Davies is up-front about pointing out that she is no mathematician nor teacher.  I give her kudos for that.  However, other mathematics professors who have joined the “debate” seem to have forgotten that they profess (which largely means research) advanced math, and are not trained in Education.  That unfortunately limits the value of their input (but to be clear, does not discount their concerns).  Such individuals who can be considered experts of both math and education, such as Dr. Craig Loewen of the University of Lethbridge, have had constructive input into the curriculum.

Myth:
Curriculum determines the approach used to instruct math concepts.
Fact:
Teachers determine the approach used to instruct math concepts.  Teachers are expected to use methods that are best for the students.  There is no one-size-fits-all method to teaching math, but mastery is still expected nonetheless.  Curriculum only informs what is to be taught.

Myth:
Teachers are being forced to ignore "the basics".
Fact:
Teachers are autonomous professionals.  If a teacher feels as though they are not permitted to teach the basics, they should take their issue up with Member Services at the Alberta Teachers' Association.  It is up to teachers how they feel it is best to deliver the curriculum to their unique and varied students, and oftentimes this requires a differentiated approach.  To say that teachers are being force to ignore the "basics" is to say teachers are not autonomous professionals.  If you fear that teachers are not given that autonomy, take your issue up with the Education Minister.

Myth:
PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment), carried out by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, is a reliable measurement tool for the efficacy of a region’s math instruction.
Fact:
Firstly, the OECD is for Economic, not Educational Cooperation and Development.  This should be our first indicator that something is rotten in the state of ... well in this case, France.
Secondly, PISA is a measurement tool that uses data from different tests in different countries, and different countries report their results differently, almost in a self-selected manner.  Certainly they’ll tell you it’s all the same test, but what they don’t advertise is that regions can also pick and choose various questions to be included in the test.  If a country wants to improve their PISA scores, they simply need to make their math tests easier, or only have the best regions of their country participate.  In Alberta’s case, our PISA score can drop simply because of the increase in our expectations of our math students, or because other countries pick only their best jurisdictions to report.  Using PISA as a standardized test has the same problem as using Provincial Achievement Tests; a standardized test can't work if there are too many variables making each test subject different before you even test them.  China reports only a few jurisdictions, Alberta reports the whole province.  A student who grew up learning Isa, Dalawa, Tatlo writes the same Provincial Achievement Test as a student who grew up learning One, Two, Three.  See the problem here?

Myth:
Teachers have had meaningful input into the curriculum redesign process.
Fact:
Even though the world’s leading regions in education (such as Finland) ask the Alberta Teachers Association for advice, curriculum redesign has kept the ATA at arm’s length.  It hasn’t been until just a few months ago (years after curriculum redevelopment started) that Minister Jeff Johnson has started listening to the ATA and considerably relaxed his deadlines and expectations for the completion of the curriculum redesign and its implementation.  Had teachers had meaningful input into the curriculum redesign process, you would have seen a much larger emphasis on professional development to prepare teachers for the new curriculum.

Myth:
The Western and Northern Canadian Protocol (WNCP) predetermines the direction education will take, so consultation with the public is merely a smoke screen.
Fact:
The WCNP is simply an organization of collaboration, not of predetermination.  For that matter, if the WNCP were in fact predetermining education, then we should also see scores from the Yukon, NWT, Saskatchewan and Manitoba plunge, and that is not the case.  There is ample evidence showing that results from public consultations have been considered in the curriculum redesign process.

Myth:
With the introduction of Student Learning Assessments (SLAs), grades will disappear, and so will accountability.
Fact:
SLAs are completed at the beginning of the year.  They are to be used by teachers to guide their instruction.  Grading strategies for the remainder of the year are determined by the School Board, various curricular departments within the board, School Administration and finally teachers, in that order.  If a school chooses not to use grades, it is not because it is mandated as such from the government.  Furthermore, any assessment strategy employed by a teacher should show that each student matches the SLA at the beginning of the year, and show a trend for the student of either maintaining or improving their understanding of the curricular concepts.  Any student who shows evidence of a reduction in performance should also have documentation to indicate what strategies were used to address that reduction, and should also show evidence of subsequent improvement following those strategies.  All this documentation exists, teachers are required to do it.  Accountability is not a concern here.

Myth:
David Staples provides no useful feedback.
Fact:
David Staples shows a bias because that is his job.  He is very good at his job, somehow finding justification for writing 42 columns on this supposed “debate”.  In fact, many people across Canada are now equating his name with this whole "debate".  This is the time of stardom a columnist dreams of, so to maintain this high-profile status that sells his column, he must write prolifically.  And write he does.  His viewpoints are based on the idea that “basic math” is needed for every child.
Personal anecdote; when I was learning math, I didn’t not learn it because I could memorize things.  My father, in fact, taught me math using a very “discovery”, or rather an "inquiry" approach.  This was 20 years ago.  So to go back to “the way we used to do it” might just mean going back to “discovery” ... *ahem* ... "inquiry".
Nonetheless, Mr. Staples does provide an insight that allows us to identify issues that require rectifying.  Taken with a grain of salt, it can be very useful.  But make sure you take it with a grain of salt, because much like the first myth debunked, a columnist does not a journalist make; see Joe Bower for more discussion on this thought.

Myth:
The Wildrose are representing the concerns of all Albertans in this "debate".
Fact:
The Wildrose, rather than representing concerns, are telling Albertans what to be concerned about.  In a telephone town hall that I can only describe as a “push poll”, the majority of individuals whose questions were aired were those that were speaking against teachers, math instruction, or curriculum redesign.  Of 15 questioners that I noted, 1 educational aide got through long enough to praise teachers on their balanced instruction, 1 parent got through to do the same, and no teachers were aired.  When I pressed them about how they chose which questions got through, it became evident that their town hall had not only self-selected data, but also inaccurate data.  They couldn’t even find the question I had asked.
That question was “Danielle, when a parent comes to you expressing concern, do you ask first if they have approached their child’s teacher, and if they haven’t, do you direct them there?”  I have never received a follow-up as they promised in the teletownpushpollhall.

Myth:
Being an Education Critic makes you an Education Expert.
Fact:
The Wildrose are seemingly unware of the fact that they are arguing about one thing when the issue is something completely different; similar to arguing about how clouds are formed when the discussion is actually about acid rain.  The Wildrose are caught in a problem in that they confuse the “what” of teaching with the “how” of teaching.  For example, if you need to transport oil, there are many ways you can do it.  You can pipe it, drive it, put it on a train, break it down into other products that are easier to consume like gasoline and ethanol, etc.  So if you don’t want the oil on a train, what should you do?

By Wildrose logic, don’t use oil, use canola instead.

Certainly that would change the transport options, and moving to “greener” solutions is a noble goal, but we would lose all the value that exists in oil.

Curriculum defines “what” teachers are expected to impart to students, not “how”.  Certainly “how” to teach something depends on what is being taught, but if parents are displeased with “how” teachers teach, asking them to try a different “how” makes far more sense than trying a different “what”.

In a meeting with Wildrose Education Critic Bruce McAllister and Leader Danielle Smith, I was told that they believe strongly in a “return to teaching the basics.”  At first that sounds like a “what” item.  But when they explain what they think the basics are, they suggest things like memorizing times tables, methods of long division, vertical addition and formula memorization.  These are not the “what”, but rather the “how”.  As I’ve learned, there are more than a few ways to skin a fish.

When I asked them how they know what the basics were, the response from Ms. Smith was “the easiest way for a student to learn.”  Again, a “how”.  My response and question was “what if the easiest way for a student to learn divisibility by 9 is by summing up the digits, not memorizing the times table?”

The two seconds of stunned silence was telling.  So was the response from Mr. McAllister when it finally came; “we’re just going to have to agree to disagree on this.”

So we did.

I’m not saying don’t change curriculum, because in many cases a good curriculum update and overhaul is well overdue.  I’m saying if you want to change the “how”, go to the person who actually make those decisions; go to the teacher.

However, who would want to go to a teacher now to discuss their child’s successes in school?  After all, we are self-serving people who care more about our own then your children.  But don’t worry, government has your back.  They will ensure, from their offices in downtown Edmonton, that your child’s classroom is perfectly managed, and that teachers have so much oversight as to not have to think for themselves, or for your child, anymore.  The government knows best.

And just in case you thought that was only a PC government, allow me to correct that misconception.  Jeff Johnson believes the ATA cannot manage their own, which is why he has claimed himself savior of our discipline process.  However, the Wildrose’s Rob Anderson jumped on the Johnson bandwagon.  So, if the political pundits are correct and the blue and orange banners are replaced with green and pink ones in 2016, don’t expect any change to how they approach Education.

The only way to avoid that is to have an alternative.  Kent Hehr had a dream of being a teacher cut short, but his passion cannot be ignored.  Deron Bilous has been a teacher, so understands the profession.  The Alberta Party is currently working on its Education Policy among other policies, soliciting input from all stakeholders.  Ask each of these people about the Great Math "Debate", you will find a hugely different response than the one in the media.

Parents should be freaking out right about now.  Regardless of which of the conservative parties take power in 2016, it won’t be professional educators making decisions about Education.  It will be some elected official whose only adult experience in our schools was either delivering a Xerox machine, broadcasting a special interest segment on a morning news show, or spending 10 months bickering instead of running a school board.

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.

We are on the road to recovery.  People are smiling, reconnecting, and full of hope.  Even in the most difficult situations, people don't want to be left wallowing in the flood, so they are trudging forward.

For the life of me, I can't understand why Danielle Smith won't join them.

Tonight, Smith hosts a forum about the forced entries and the gun seizures.  She is inviting everyone who had been affected by the questionable RCMP activities to come and share what has happened to them.  Everyone except the RCMP.

Alison Redford calls Smith's forum "sensationalizing" the issue.  I disagree.

There is nothing sensational about spreading open a wound to pour lemon juice on it.

We need to move on.  We can't sit around complaining day after day, because complaining will not put the doors back on their hinges.

If you are concerned with is getting compensated for damages done during the flood, go into the local detachment and get a file going.  The RCMP are completing the investigations and gathering all the evidence to support your claims, and once completed will submit the claim to those who would be covering it.  Is it taking some time?  Yes, but no forum is going to speed it up, especially one where the RCMP haven't been asked to come along.

Certainly if you aren't pleased with how the RCMP acted during the emergency, you should lodge a complaint.  Even the RCMP Commissioner has called for one.  But there is a forum to do that, and it isn't at Highwood High School.

The first forum is to go to the local detachment and submit a public complaint.  But if you are uncomfortable with that idea, then the forum of choice should be the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP.  If you want to submit such a complaint, do so on their website.

That's it.  We didn't need a forum for that.  Now let's move on to rebuilding High River for the future.

We've lost focus. We are talking about the wrong things.

Don't get me wrong, the things we are talking about need to be discussed.  Raj Sherman is exactly right asking about how contracts are being distributed.  Danielle Smith is exactly right to call for a public inquiry.  The PCs are right to get started on mapping and mitigations, they just don't know how to do it.

None of this matters to many Albertans right now.

We must focus on the disaster at hand, and get the recovery taken care of.  The PCs aren't getting that job done, but they are right to focus on it.

There are still hundreds of people, maybe thousands, who have no idea where their insurance coverage stops and the Disaster Recovery Program starts.  This is not specifically a High River problem, even though they dominate the news.  There are people in Exshaw, Bragg Creek, Medicine Hat, Black Diamond and Calgary still in limbo waiting for answers from their insurance company.  Companies are not necessarily at fault; they are trying to protect their bottom line, and they do so by saying "the Disaster Recovery Program will cover that for you".  But the job of the government is to protect their citizens, and they aren't doing it.

There are still hundreds of people who also have no place to live.  Again, this is not specifically a High River problem, although most of the people in this boat live there.  However, there are those who live in Exshaw, Bragg Creek, Medicine Hat and Black Diamond who, because they weren't in the floodplain but were rather in the flood fringe or no zone at all, are unable to relocate.  Some of those people are unable to build on the former site because, as could be expected with flood waters, the ground their home used to be on is now very far downstream.  Soil contamination is preventing homeowners from returning.

An exemplar; George Lane Park, a beautiful park and campground in downtown High River and just on the flip side of a berm from the river, was heavily flooded; at least 6 inches of silt covered the land.  Today, grass grows through the silt.

However, if you drive through the northeast end of the town, almost 60 days after the flood, no grass grows.  Not even a weed.

You cannot rebuild a home where grass won't even grow, and expect families to let their kids play there.

The Town of High River's Downtown Core is nothing but empty shell after empty shell.  If small business doesn't come back right away, there won't be a reason to rebuild High River.

Residents across southern Alberta know they need help transferring from insurance coverage to Disaster Recovery Funding, and many also know they need help determining how to live anywhere when they can't rebuild where they are.  And all they are hearing from opposition parties is stuff they couldn't care less about ... yet.

So congratulations PCs, you are focusing on the right thing.  However, that's where my congratulations stops.

Under the leadership of Doug Griffiths (not Alison Redford, she has been woefully silent on everything), we have seen flood victims treated like children under his "father knows best" mentality.

At a meeting in High River, Griffiths' numerous "I know how you feel" statements showed he knows anything but how High Riverites feel.

When the official Disaster Recovery Program email is shown to have an autoresponder that says "we will not respond to your email" and is admonished for it, Griffiths responds with "It was fixed already. Try to keep up".  Yes father, I will understand that even though you did wrong, I should not expect an apology, but rather will be scolded like a child.

My favorite Griffiths quote (insert sarcastic tone here): "taxpayers cannot be on the hook just because you're scared."  I now understand that being scared precludes me from being a taxpayer, thanks for the education, Mr. Griffiths.

The problem is that when Griffiths sees a gymnasium stuffed to the point of being called an illegal assembly full of people who are trying to tell him his government is not doing enough, he patronizes them instead of coming up with solutions.

The solutions are easy.  They are in the best interests of PCs, just to get the mob to be quiet, if not to actually help them.

Fund an ombudsman who will help individuals with their insurance, and once they're insurance is completed, have that same ombudsman guide them into the Disaster Recovery Process.  The sooner people get into the DRP system, the less Mr. Griffiths will have to hear gripe from flood victims because, get this, he has actually helped them.

The only reason the government would not do this is because of the fear of the cost of paying these ombudsmen.  I suggest spending a comparatively small amount on the salaries of these ombudsmen, as it will almost definitely save the DRP administrative costs, and will streamline the process, making it more cost effective and efficient.

Adjust the Disaster Recovery Program criteria to help those where rebuilding is simply not an option.  Griffiths has already explained that each DRP claim will be treated on an individual basis.  Why not just tell these people that if rebuilding is not an option, steps will be taken to either make it an option, or to relocate.  Then Mr. Griffiths will not have to hear gripe from these flood victims because, get this, he has actually helped them.

The only reason the government won't do this is because they are afraid that once they start relocating even just one resident, they've set a precedent.  It's a more dangerous precedent to make residents feel as though they have no choice but to walk away from everything they've worked for.  Once you do that, the government is going to need to start increasing funding for homeless shelters, because that's where all these flood victims will end up.

Do whatever it takes to get small and mid-sized businesses back in their buildings.  Intervene on rental/landlord disputes for a temporary time, and get the repair process expedited in business-places immediately.  Help retail outlets purchase stock right away, they are already passed the point of ordering for Christmas.  Do what it takes.

The only reason the government hasn't done this, as Doug Griffiths has explained, is that they are still focused on residents, and they'll get to businesses later.  Not good enough.  No business means no residents.  He of all people should know this.

It has become obvious that fatherly Doug Griffiths will not listen to the children. He can't see the forest for the floodwaters.

It also became obvious long ago that the Associate Ministers in charge of Recovery and Reconstruction are not in the position to make these decisions, being relegated by the father to the back of the room or even further outside the hall, as was the case with Rick Fraser in High River last week.

So where is the leader of our province in all this?  Nowhere.  She doesn't run this province.  Even when she said "we will return all to what it once was", the rest of her caucus isn't following through with it.  She is not leading.  Such a shame that she isn't even willing to consider what her late mother's neighbours are suggesting.  Even her constituents in Calgary-Elbow can't get in touch with her.  I wonder if the PCs will be willing to allow a non-leader to allow the caucus to continue to run amok?

I hope she steps up to the plate.  She needs to show up to her own party.  But she needs to do it now, because we're starting to lose focus on the needs of right now.

Through the Associate Minister Responsible for Regional Recovery and Reconstruction in High River Rick Fraser, I've been pressing for details on what's next for Albertans affected by the flood.  Sunday, 38 days after the flood, most answers came.

Yet today, 40 days after the flood, there are still High River residents falling through the cracks in the foundation.

Refer to my letter to Fraser identifying the details Albertans needed.  The only question remaining completely outstanding is that of the Disaster Recover Program Loophole.  If the Disaster Recovery Program is the foundation upon which we "rebuild Alberta", then residents in the Hamptons of High River (and a few in other areas) are falling through the cracks in that foundation.

Hamptons residents are not in a flood plain or fringe zone.  Therefore, according to the Disaster Recovery Program, if they want to be able to get help from the Government in the event of a future flood, they have to floodproof.  And let's face it, where the water has gone, the water will go again.

This assumes, of course, that the Hamptons residents CAN stay, and therefore can choose to floodproof or not.  It provides nothing for them if they CAN'T stay.

While everyone else was already allowed back in, people in the Hamptons and one area of Sunrise were given an escort into their homes, and 15 minutes maximum to collect their most precious things.  Two days later, they were allowed back in.

I was there helping out a friend of mine.  The stench of the entire community was sickening.  I drive a Honda Fit, a car that can park in those tiny spots that nobody else considers in the parking lot, and there was so much activity I couldn't even drive through.  People had obviously been waiting for this moment, and every helper and volunteer they could get was there.

Residents could see it; the reason it took so long to get them home.  It is a massive berm that runs along 2nd Avenue.  Certainly creating that berm in the middle of Lake Hampton would have been no small feat.  But creating that berm meant everyone south of it could have the Lake pumped out, and everyone north of it, including the Hamptons and one area of Sunrise, would be sacrificed.  Water out of the south end would be pumped into the backyards, basements, and sewage systems of the Hamptons.  While the flood caused the water to be there, the extent of the damage was due to being bermed in; a man-made solution.

For interest's sake, those who made decisions during the emergency phase never admitted to sacrificing the Hamptons.  In fact, they never received that admission until last Friday, 37 days after the flood, 34 days after the decision to sacrifice, and only in a very closed-door meeting (which I was invited to, but not allowed in because I was not a resident of a small area known as Hamptons Commons).

Ask almost any resident in the Hamptons and Sunrise, and they'll tell you they understand the need to be sacrificed.  They are the few, and the Central and Southeast areas of High River was the many.  In fact, some residents will even tell you they were proud to have their homes selected for sacrifice to save the town they love.

Approximately 48-hour of straight labour with that berm looming over them later, Alberta Health Services came around and told people to leave their homes, labelling them "Not Fit for Human Habitation", whether it be for structural or mould problems.  Many AHS assessors didn't even come in the front door, unless they were forced to do so by a contractor working on their clients behalf.  The vast majority of those who got the NFH designation were never told what to do or what to expect next.

Nobody has told the Hamptons residents why it took so long, although they have figured it out for themselves.  Nobody had told them what the next step was, except to sign up for a Disaster Recovery Program whose criteria never applied to them.  None of the litany of assessors that have been around are giving any details as to what needs to be done next.

One resident gets frustrated enough to bring in his own structural engineer.  The recommendation by that independent engineer was to bulldoze.

Another resident gets frustrated enough to bring in his own mould specialist.  This specialist explains that he had seen marijuana grow ops in better shape than this Hamptons house, and they were bulldozed.

A resident of Sunrise, a very well-respected landscaper, explains that to get rid of the soil contamination from sewage, chemicals left in garages that will have spilled into the Lake, and other leaching effects, they may need to strip the entire community down to the clay.  One look at the vegetative death in the community that has shown no signs of recovery weeks after Lake Hampton was gone, and its hard to not agree with him.

The residents are getting a pretty good picture of what's going to happen. They can't afford to raise their families or live in a home with structural problems, mould contaminating both the inside and outside, and sewage-ridden soil.  They can't afford to stay.  There is no choice for them, they must move.  And that leaves their neighbours who think they might be able to stay wonder why they'd stay in a community with no community.  Finally the phrase "property values" is mentioned.  And as the Disaster Recovery Program is announced, they also realize that their situation is exacerbated by the fact the criteria don't even fit them.


Take a peek at these photos.  The photography is beautiful, the subject material is spirit-breaking.  This is a typical Hamptons home.  This is a typical sacrificial lamb.

And the foundation for "rebuilding Alberta", the Disaster Recovery Program, is telling these people they must stay.  There is no coverage for stripping the soil to the clay.  There is no amount of remediation that could correct both the structures and the mould.  Even a rebuild is not an option.


In prances Tervita, fresh off a $45 million contract with the Province of Alberta, here to save the day.  Even though they just finished refurbishing the Saddledome in Calgary, they haven't got enough employees to do the job, so they hold a job fair to hire High Riverites.  They're ONLY mandate; remediate.

Hamptons residents are told to register with Tervita (after already having had to register with Red Cross, Emergency Operations Centres, the Volunteer Centre, their Insurance Companies, and Alberta Health Services).  They're told within 24 hours they'll get a call, and within 48 hours of that an assessor will come out.  Nope and nope.  9 days after Tervita was awarded the contract, the Hamptons still looked as if Tervita had only been around for a day.  It was still deserted.

It's an eery feeling driving through that neighbourhood that just a week ago had so much activity I couldn't drive my subcompact car through it.

The homeowners expect to see seasoned experts come and assess, and so are surprised when they find the assessors coming are much younger than they.  One pair of assessors go in saying it will take them about 90 minutes, and come out 19 minutes later with puffy eyes and shortness of breath.

On Friday, July 26 at 1 PM, Tervita met with some of the Hamptons owners.  They were given a sheet of paper with a fill-in-the-blank statement giving the Queen, the Town of High River and Tervita access to their homes and to strip whatever they decided they needed to strip.  No letterhead, and no other paperwork indicating what assessments had been done to show work was even required.  Residents asked what was going to be stripped.  Residents asked what chemicals would be used to deal with mould.  Residents asked who the engineer was in charge of the job.  No answers came.  So the residents didn't sign.

I wouldn't have signed either.  It sounds almost like an unsavoury car mechanic trying to convince me that it cost $200 to put a plug in a door panel.

Then the proverbial gun-to-the-head: those residents who said they wouldn't sign were immediately told that if they didn't, the Government wouldn't help them, and they were on their own.

A meeting with Danielle Smith, and she gathers many notes and starts pounding the pavement with insurance providers who are still giving residents the run-around, pressing for the Government to reconsider their stance on the Hamptons in light of the fact they were sacrificed, and keeping track of the charlatan contractors that come around.

Smith, for her part, has done very well by the Hamptons.  But even she, at that meeting, admitted there was only so much she could do.

So, indeed, as promised by Tervita, the Hamptons residents are on their own.  This is why you saw them at a protest in front of Alison Redford's office in Calgary.  They had no problem going, as they have no home to work on, and for many of them their businesses are also on standby due to the flood.

Work through the Governments formula for Disaster Recovery Funding, and you'll find that the average Hamptons home would cost only $10,000 less to rebuild than it would to simply buy them out.  And that doesn't even include the soil, loss of property value, and the fact that the community will be, as a colleague of mine stated, a "Swiss Cheese" community.  All value, either financial, physical or community-based, is gone in the Hamptons, and the owners know it was because they were sacrificed.

Don't you think that they deserve a bit better than 40 days with only half-measures and no answers?

More follow-up on the questions I posed to Fraser.

On July 18, 2013 there was a Flood Information Night that left many scratching their heads.  I posted some questions as a summary of what we needed to know.  The status of those questions is as follows;

Flood Maps - A flood mitigation panel has been set up, one that is supposed to solicit the experience of everyday Albertans who go through floods on a regular basis.  Contact information for them is outstanding, as is a timeline for when to expect the maps to be updated by.

Insurance Complaints - Detailed procedures for how to manage this have been documented, and Danielle Smith in particular has been working hard on this, but in many cases complaints still arise.  It is for this reason, as well as the confusion behind the purpose Tervita has in High River and the Disaster Recover Program, that I have called on Premier Redford for employ an "Event-Specific Ombudsman".  With a person in that role, those with continuing challenges of various sorts with their coverage can have those challenges fixed faster, and therefore they can get back home faster.

Disaster Recovery Funding Timeline - Not provided, although details on the formula for coverage has been released.

Mortgages - The Government has asked for all renewal and foreclosure activity to stop for the time being.  Also, the Government has started to institute the Floodway Designations on the Land Titles for those who have been affected.  This recommendation came from the 2006 Flood Report.  The jury is still out as to whether or not that will protect homeowners from issues in the real estate market, or make it harder for them to sell.  In many cases, I think protection is what it will achieve.

Floodproofing Standards - The Government, yesterday, released the details every Albertan needs to figure out how to prepare their homes best.  They call them the "Minimum Individual Flood Mitigation Measures".  I call them Floodproofing Standards.  Either way, details on what floodproofing looks like have been announced, and this is good news for everyone.

The floods in late June of 2013 were unlike anything our province has every experienced before.  It should come as no surprise that challenges and conflict arise when our livelihoods are at risk.  The most recent communication between residents of High River and Heather Mack, Director of Government Relations with the Insurance Bureau of Canada, received from @okotoksNow is a great example of one set of challenges that we must face.

Insurance Providers are expected to be, in the common vernacular, "the good guys".  We rely upon our Insurance Provider in times when we need it most, and we expect them to come and "save the day".  When this doesn't happen, it is no surprise we leave the interaction very wounded.

It is obvious from this communication and the nature of the forum at the Flood Information Night on July 18, 2013, and many other meetings I’ve had since across Southern Alberta, that there are some very wounded people as a result of confusion with regards to insurance.  There is a lot of uncertainty as to what is supposed to be covered, what impact independent adjusters have, why some receive coverage and others don't, what procedures are appropriate for adjusting a claim, and other issues of communication.

The Alberta Party endeavours to focus on common sense solutions, and believes it can govern this way.  One such solution that would best serve Albertans is to appoint an independent Event-Specific Ombudsman, paid for through the Disaster Recovery Program, selected by the Superintendent of Insurance in Alberta, and given a strict set of parameters in their job description.  Those parameters would include meeting with those who experience confusion with their insurance policies and helping to educate those individuals as to what their policies cover; assisting individuals in claims appeals processes where necessary; educating and advising individuals as to what the next steps should be once the claim process has been completed (whether covered or not) including Disaster Recovery Program applications.

Individuals with insurance questions remain in limbo.  Any effort the Alberta Government makes in helping individuals through the insurance process and into the Disaster Recovery Program processes means less limbo for residents.  It also means less overall cost on the Disaster Recovery Program; the sooner residents receive the assistance they need, the less cost they will need to incur to return to normal.  The cost of employing an Event-Specific Ombudsman would easily be made up in the savings in reconstruction, should that reconstruction happen sooner rather than later when the destruction is even worse.  It only makes sense to help this process get completed quickly.

Certainly changes to the Insurance industry is not a common sense solution. While competition within the industry is one reason why there are such varied issues, it is also a way of ensuring the best services are available to Albertans.  An insurance company who treats its clients poorly and does not make appropriate coverage affordable will not likely be retained following this flood.  What is needed, therefore, is a method of speeding the recovery process.

Flood victims need to get through this recovery process quickly.  Their livelihood and Alberta's economy depends upon it.  It is easily seen in the best interests of residents, Insurance Providers and the Province to go through these processes quickly and efficiently.  The Alberta Government is in the perfect position to make this happen.

As a member of the Alberta Party in the Highwood constituency, I have written this letter to our Premier, the Honourable Alison Redford, asking her to work with the Insurance Industry by funding the appointment of an Event-Specific Ombudsman to effectively complete the insurance claim process for those affected by the flood.  This will help the Alberta Government show to Albertans how much they truly value rebuilding Alberta after the flood.

Click here to see the original letter and document.

Attention: The Honourable Rick Fraser, Associate Minister of Recovery and Reconstruction for High River

Dear Associate Minister,

I write to offer you the opportunity to directly respond in an open format to questions and concerns expressed by victims of the most recent 2013 Alberta Floods.  It is in Albertans' best interests to have open, clear and concise communication about the needs of Albertans, and the Government's efforts to fulfill them.  I intend on being a partner with you in the development of this communication.

In particular, the questions and concerns I refer to are many of those expressed at the Flood Information evening in High River on July 18, 2013, a meeting that left the vast majority of those attending dissatisfied with a lack of details.  While the five gentlemen at the forum-styled information session answered questions to the best of their ability, they simply were not equipped to provide the details that High River residents were expecting, and that many other Albertans will also be expecting at their own Flood Information nights.

This has led to a great deal of frustration, and the level of discourse between residents and officials is dwindling rapidly as a result.  I am hoping that through this letter we can retain a high level of discourse, and yet provide the details Albertans need, want and expect.

I am writing in this open format as many were unable to attend the meeting for a variety of reasons, and should have access to the content of the discussions, just as much as they should have access to the detailed responses.  I believe this to be a perfect opportunity for you to connect more directly with the concerns expressed by residents, and therefore improve the level of communication with your open responses.

The format of the questions attached provide synopses of those expressed at the July 18 Information Night, the answers provided that same night, and the remaining detail High River residents in particular are looking for.  It is my hope, as a partner in communication, you respond in a similarly open fashion.  Should you do so, I would be very happy to share as publicly as possible on your behalf the responses you provide.

It should be noted that none of the questions attached refer to how the flood was managed, although it was a significant theme brought forward by High River residents during that Information Night.  That would be a topic that should be assigned to an independent inquiry following the Stabilization phase of the Provincial Recovery Framework publicized earlier today.  All questions below apply directly to the current stage of that Framework, the Stabilization phase.

I know you share with me a desire to help Albertans move forward following this flood.  I hope you share with me a desire for improved communications, and therefore can work with me as a partner in informing Albertans with the details they need.  Albertans have shown great resiliency through working in concert with each other, and I hope that working as partners in communication, we can continue that collaboration to the benefit of all Albertans.

Yours faithfully,
[original signed]
Joel Windsor,
High River Resident

CC: The Honourable Alison Redford, Premier of Alberta
Ms. Danielle Smith, M.L.A. for HighwoodThe Honourable Doug Horner, President of the Treasury Board and Minister of Finance
The Honourable Doug Griffiths, Minister of Municipal Affairs
The Honourable Diana McQueen, Minister of Environment and Sustainable Resource Development
His Worship Emile Blokland, Mayor of the Town of High River
Mr. William Munsey, President of the Alberta Party
Citizens of the Province of Alberta

Encl.

Question: Regarding Flood Maps - It is obvious, particularly to High River residents, the current flood maps were out-of-date prior to the flood, are now even moreso as a result of changes to the terrain due to the flood, and in some cases inaccurate as residents expressed a history of flooding even though their property is not in any designated flood zone.  Residents not only want to know their status regarding potential future Disaster Recovery Funding but also the general safety and flood-mitigative needs of their houses regardless of the occurence of disasters.  We recognize that no map can necessarily be perfectly accurate, but the extent to which the inaccuracies exist is causing undue pressure on residents.  What is the timeline for the updating of these maps?
Answer provided on July 18, 2013 was inconclusive, however the need for updating the maps was recognized.
Associate Minister, can you please provide a commitment to a timeline for the updating of these maps so Albertans can make informed decisions about the future of their homes?

Question: Regarding Insurance Complaints - One representative at the Flood Information Evening explained that many houses were affected by sewage as high as the second level of their houses due to the pressure the floodwaters placed on the sewage system.  Some insurance companies refuse to cover damage at those levels of the houses stating “sewage that high is not possible.”  This is simply one example of the many disputes residents are having with their insurance providers.  If there is a dispute between a resident and their insurance company, what recourse does the resident have?
Answer provided on July 18, 2013: Hire a lawyer.
Follow-Up Question: If the insurance company is found to be at fault, will the Disaster Recovery Program cover those legal costs?
Answer provided on July 18, 2013: No.
Recommendation provided by a representative from the Insurance Bureau of Canada via a Tele-Town Hall hosted by Danielle Smith, M.L.A. for Highwood: For any grievance, complaint or even minor inconvenience, consumers are asked to call the Insurance Bureau of Canada at 1-800-377-6378.
Associate Minister, can you please commit to collaborating with the Insurance Bureau of Canada to ensure not only are insurance contracts appropriately adhered to, but that consumers are protected from insurance companies who downplay the damage caused by the effects of the flood?

Question: Regarding Disaster Recovery Funding Timeline - Residents are ready to remediate their houses now.  These residents, however, have no financial means to procure the professional services to do so.  How long will residents need to wait before they have the various resources, including financial, to begin the remediation process?
Answer provided on July 18, 2013 was inconclusive, as responses are likely on a case-by-case basis, and require the presence of assessors prior to allocation of funds.
Associate Minister, in order to begin the remediation process immediately, can you please make funds available to residents immediately, understanding that residents will be responsible for costs over and above what is allocated to them through the Disaster Recovery Program?  If not, can you offer another solution that will expediate the process of getting funds to residents so they can remediate their homes sooner?

Question: Regarding Mortgages - Many residents are at the season where they need to renegotiate their mortgages.  Some of these residents are uncertain as to the future of their homes, and therefore do not know the next step in the mortgage-renegotiation process.  What course of action should these residents take?
Answer provided on July 18, 2013 was inconclusive, as the panel recognized they did not have the skillset to answer the question.
Associate Minister, can you and the Alberta Government advocate on behalf of residents to the various financial institutions to temporarily stay all mortgage activity of those who are eligible for Disaster Recovery Funding so that residents can focus on making the best decisions for themselves and their property which those financial institutions have a stake in?  If not, can you ensure that Disaster Recovery Funding will also cover the costs of not renegotiating mortgages in a timely fashion?

Question: Regarding Disaster Recovery Program Loophole - For residents living in Flood Fringe or Overland Water Flow zones (according to current maps) as well as residents who were not in any designated Flood zone, yet were devastated by these most recent floods, many of them are no longer in the physical, mental and/or financial position to remain in the same premises.  Some of these homes have been condemned, and therefore residents have no choice available to them but to relocate.  According to the summary flowchart provided by the Disaster Recovery Program, residents in these zones are only provided assistance if they chose to remain.  For residents who, due to condemned houses, health-related inability or significant financial malady are incapable of choosing to remain and have a need to relocate due to the devastating impacts of this flood, what Disaster Recovery Funding is available to them?
Answer provided on July 18, 2013: None.
Associate Minister, please recognize that the criteria for Disaster Recovery Funding for individuals in Flood Fringe zones assumes residents have a choice.  Can you please adjust the criteria to also provide assistance to those residents who, for their own individual circumstances, have no choice remaining, and must relocate?

Question: Regarding Floodproofing Standards - Many residents expected that with an announcement that the Government of Alberta would only provide future disaster funding in the event of another flood if homes were appropriately mitigated, that the announcement would be followed presently by a description of those floodproofing standards.  They expected at the July 18, 2013 meeting to be told what those standards are.  High River residents are very resourceful and well-experienced in flood recovery, so knowing those standards would have undoubtedly assisted residents in speeding up the recovery process.  What are those floodproofing standards?
Answer provided on July 18, 2013 was that those standards are as of yet unidentified, but are likely to differ on a case-by-case basis.
Associate Minister, standards are benchmarks that all Albertans can be expected to adhere to, should not differ on a case-by-case basis, and through their very existence can help speed up the recovery process.  Can you commit to providing at the very least guidelines, or preferably a document detailing floodproofing standards that can be applied across the province, and when can Albertans expect those documents to be made publicly available?

Click here to see the original letter and document.