Last week the Okotoks Town Council began the process of acquiring the Wedderburn land on the north end of town across from Holy Trinity Academy and the St. James Catholic Church.  They want this to be an educational, recreational and cultural facility for the community.

Fist pump.

Council has made it easy on the NDP in Alberta.  In particular one man, David Eggen.

Eggen is the Minister of Education as well as the Minister of Culture and Tourism.  In one decision, Council set the scene for Eggen to make his mark in our region.

10 days ago I sat in an audience listening to Eggen speak to a conference of teachers who all gave up their summer time for the teaching profession.  At that conference, Eggen told us that he had “found” funding for all 232 school infrastructure projects the former PC Government had announced.

Two things on that; first I must never forget that the PCs were in the habit of announcing and never providing all in an effort to save their own political skin.  The former Education Minister is a perfect example of that.

Second, missing from Eggen’s announcement was how much he was banking on future generations to pay for it.  He did say that the NDP were not borrowing for operations, but 232 infrastructure projects aren’t operational projects, they’re capital projects.

So I pulled him aside afterward (he was in a major rush to move on, but to be clear it was obvious he’d rather stay and have a depth of discussion).  We had 60 seconds, but in that 60 seconds we covered a swath.  The first thing he said to me was that he had to borrow through the nose to get that money.

That made the fiscal conservative in me cringe.  I asked him if he really was willing to fund 232 projects that might not fit his philosophy.  That peaked his attention.

“Mr. Eggen, there are school projects approved to be built outside of the communities, sometimes as far as 10 minutes outside of communities.  And you just funded them.”

At that he asked for an example, and I gave him the planned school near Aldersyde which is to serve Okotoks students.  I told him it is in an industrial area, it has inadequate infrastructure for traffic, which will also impact the 10-minute response time the closest firehall will have.  He balked at the idea, and asked me to contact him with more details.  That was the first 40 seconds.  The last 20 are for another blog.

So here are the details.  Okotoks has no water.  It can’t get a commitment on water.  As a result it can’t develop, and that includes schools.  Yet its 26,000 residents keep having babies.  So the Foothills School Division starts looking.  It finds space in the open arms of the M.D. of Foothills by the Legacy Fieldhouse.

This would be the third school project designed to be built outside the Okotoks community.  Davisburg has two schools, one in each school division, and while it could be argued that they serve a different community, that is prime agricultural land that has been eroded to form dots of acreages all over the countryside.  Further, is some instances busses are covering or expected to cover areas on the outskirts of Okotoks.  Much like a crosswalk, the lines separating Okotoks from M.D. do not stop cars, and those people are just as much Okotokians as on the other side of the road.

One outlier is an anomaly.  Two raises an eyebrow.  Three is a trend.  The trend to break up communities is beginning to show.  This is a trend toward shipping students out of a community, and away from the concept of schools as community hubs.  It's a trend to put so much space between neighbours that they no longer need to talk to each other.  So Minister Eggen needs to either agree with this trend the PCs set for him, or stamp it out.  But if he stamped it out, where would this new school go?

Here comes the Okotoks Town Council to save the day!

Not only did they find a site, but they seem to be appealing to both Eggen’s portfolios.  As Minister of Education, he should be thrilled there is now a site that would be basically inside town (remember, those town borders do not a blockade make).  He should further be thrilled with the idea of a cultural space adjacent to it.  It meets the philosophy of kids staying in the community they live in, and studying in a place that is a community hub.

So what’s the problem?  One minor hurdle is that the M.D. needs to agree.  That should be a minor issue, but there are some political issues at play that make it a slight challenge.  Another is our Wildrose MLA; will he be more interested in the fact that money is being borrowed to build this school, something that is completely anti-Wildrose, or will he see the necessity of having kids go to school in town and give Eggen a thumbs-up?  My feel of the current Wildrose opposition is it’s the same as the old one; opposition for opposition’s sake.

Those aren’t the deciding issues, though.  Its whether or not Eggen has the political will to stop something he’s already funded.  Its whether or not Eggen is just trying to tie up the PCs loose ends, or if he intends on righting the ship.  Its whether or not Eggen is willing to stand for something.  Its whether or not Eggen is willing to make a stand now, because the Foothills School Division cannot wait for a school for five years.  They need it now.

I’d like to think he is.  But the ball isn’t in my court, it’s in his.

Your Alberta Party representative in Highwood wants students to go to school in their communities, and not be bussed out.  Your Alberta Party representative in Highwood wants schools to be community hubs.  Your Alberta Party representative is giving the Okotoks Town Council a big fist pump.

So I call on the Alberta NDP Government, namely Minister Eggen, to endorse this shift to a school community hub, and to help Okotoks get the land to make it happen and quickly.  After that, perhaps Minister Eggen should review all the school projects he just funded, and where construction or the tendering process hasn’t already commenced, review if they meet his philosophy of what schools should be.  I’d suspect that he might find more than one that doesn’t meet his standards.

While he does, he should tell us how much we’re paying for it.  Or rather, tell us how much the next generations will be paying for it.  I won’t necessarily be opposing, but I want to hear the NDP plan for making it easier for the next generations to cover the tab.  So far I haven’t heard it.

Oh, and I hope that while Eggen is talking about the need for this school that he also talks about why this issue came up in the first place, and help Okotoks get a commitment for the Water For Life program.

Kudos to the Okotoks Town Council for their progressive thinking.  It’s time for everyone to get back to building community.

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.

A recent column in the Calgary Sun suggested that Premier Alison Redford's announcement of policy on disaster relief funding for future floods was poorly timed, and not sensitive to the needs of High Riverites.  "The premier truly is politically tone deaf," charges the Editorial.

Pot, meet kettle.

Imagine a scenario when you have been unable to enter your flood-ravaged home for 3 weeks, and when you finally do, nothing in your house is salvageable because of the high quantities of mould.  You start cleaning up, and very shortly are asking "what for?"  This is what thousands of High Riverites are doing as I type this.

Now imagine this scenario with no announcements from the province or municipal governments explaining what's next.  Some people move away, because they can't handle the recovery.  If they don't get disaster relief funding, they declare bankrupcy and hope for the best in the future.  Others stay, use whatever funding they can get to return the house to liveable state, but will never be able to sell it because no government is saying whether or not they will be covered for future events.  Then, 3 years later, after another political election, the government is in the "safe" zone and can make the controversially timed announcement that they will not get covered if they didn't move.

If that were to actually happen (which thankfully it won't), I would join the riots.

High Riverites are stronger people than the Calgary Sun gives us credit for.  We don't need our Premier to stroke our hair and say "there there, there there." We need our Premier to say "don't build there again, and here's some relief funding to help you make that decision."

Good political decisions are those that are made in the best interests of all Albertans, regardless of the sensitivity of the timing.

Now this policy is a good one for all Albertans, not just High Riverites.  Not making the announcement would have been far less sensitive to our needs.

That being said, the announcement is devoid of detail.  We could look at the current Alberta Environment Flood Mapping application, but it is now badly out of date.  Compare the two pictures below.

The first is Alberta Environment's Flood Mapping app.  The second is a map of the affected areas in the Town of High River's re-entry plan.  Notice how Alberta Environment said there was no risk of floods in the yellow, and yet that is where all the standing water is?

People who were in those yellow areas, yet still flooded out anyway, don't even know if they are in a flood plain or flood fringe zone.  There was never any indication that they were in danger, so that's why they built there.  Now what?

All levels of government need to double ... no, quintuple their efforts to get those flood mapping applications updated with current data, so those people who never expected flooding was a possibility will know whether or not that is still the case.

Then, when it comes to mitigation, we must make decisions that make sense.

The Province says "don't build in a flood plain".  Assuming we know where that flood plain is, I'm sure every High Riverite will say "thanks, I hadn't figured that out yet."

But then the Province says "if you are in the flood fringe, fortify against floods."  Then I see what Alberta Environment's idea of fortification looks like.

You don't need to be an engineer to see the problem here.  If every municipality allowed the building of many flood proofed areas, floodway and flood fringe levels would rise, the flood hazard areas would change, and we'd be back to square one.

Simply flood proofing is obviously not the best course of action if it is the only course of action.  There must be more.  Building berms or dykes aren't the best options either for the same reason.  The reason water levels rise is because they have nowhere else to go.  You build a berm to prevent the water from flowing, it goes somewhere else.  You build a dyke to divert the water, once it arrives at its destination, it still needs somewhere to go.

I'm no expert at this.  But this much I can figure out for myself.  There are experts elsewhere in the world that can help us out with this.  Ask those who manage the mighty Mississippi.  Ask those in the Netherlands who deal with floods regularly.  Those along the Nile use floods to their advantage.  Somebody out there can help us figure out how to manage our ever-changing climate, and the likelihood that this flood can happen again.

I'm glad for the announcement of flood relief policies.  It tells us what to expect, and now we can plan for it.  While the PCs missed a lot prior to the flood (namely sitting on a flood mitigation report), they at least got that part right.  Now the real test is if they'll follow up on that policy and give us the details.

We need those details now.  We need to demand it.  If we have to wait six years for them, we won't be asking the PCs for it, because they won't have been elected again.  We need that action, and we need it now.

And we need the patronization of High Riverites to stop.  We don't need sensitivity.  We need action.

It's similar to "liking" your own Facebook status, or laughing at your own joke, when nobody else does.

The High River Times printed in yesterday's paper an article about the Alberta Liberals efforts in touting their new brand, or wordmark, or whatever they wish to call it.  It stated that people (all 30 of them that came out to hear about it) were generally pleased with the brand.  Had they known how the green logo came about, they would likely change their viewpoint to match that of a number of Alberta Liberal Party insiders.

Jody MacPherson, former Alberta Liberal Party VP of Communications and President, raised the alarm over how grassroots the organization truly was.  In the same Executive meeting the logo was endorsed, the decision to not cooperate with other political parties was made, contrary to the wishes of the general membership of the party.

Alex MacDonald, an Alberta Liberal policy wonk, explained to a number of Twitter followers, including blogger Dave Cournoyer that the new brand was not focus-group tested.  It was just the brainchild of the Executive, who approved it quickly like a fashion model giddy with a new Versace.

And the President, Gerald McEachern, touts the party's grassroots and transparent nature?

A party whose Executive flouts the wishes of the general membership, and then does a massive rebranding without public consultation sounds neither transparent nor grassroots to me.

And with the backdoor decisions made by the PCs of late, we know that we can't expect transparent, accountable grassroots policy from them.

The Wildrose and the Alberta Party are the only two parties who can truly lay claim to representing average Albertans; the Wildrose from within its party membership, and the Alberta Party through its Big Listens.  There are some fundamental differences in how the two groups work, but they both develop their viewpoints from a grassroots base.

If the people of Highwood are to truly value grassroots politics, I hope they seriously consider where examples of grassroots actually exist.  Explore the Wildrose and the Alberta Party, and support the party that best represents your views.

And I would be happy to answer questions about the Alberta Party.

The Alberta Party isn't going anywhere, but they do have a lot of work to do.At their Annual General Meeting two weekends ago, it was obvious party members were not only interested in moving forward, but also that it would be best to do so as a political party.

However, in my Highwood constituency, it means absolutely nothing unless the Alberta Party can gain some footing here. And my hope is that it does.

For the first time in a very long time, April saw two parties duke it out in Okotoks and High River. If you look at the history of MLAs in our area, it comes as no surprise that the MLA chosen was one who had the highest likelihood of being easily recognized. John Barlow had little chance of becoming a Minister, but Danielle Smith had a great chance of being the Premier, and an even better chance of being the Leader of the Opposition. Policy had little to do with it.

However, the position that Danielle Smith is in is one of a megaphone. All she can be is a noise-maker, and honestly Rob Anderson and Shayne Saskiw have been doing more of that. Due to the fact that she did not form government, what she says does not go in the Legislature, and the next three years will prove no different.

Eventually, Highwood will realize that their interests are far from being well-represented. They'll look at the Wildrose and say "you're not cutting it". They'll look at the PCs and say "you're not representing us well, either." They'll have to entertain someone new.

They won't entertain anybody who isn't local. Okotokians and High Riverites hate the idea of being represented by anyone outside their area. Nobody else gets how special our area is, from the culture we breed to the increasing economic influence we sway (with both communities experiencing 20+% growth in the past year). Nobody else gets our challenges either, from our water shortages to our changing demographics. Anybody who represents us must know us.

Liberals and NDP have not been able to mount a local representative for a few elections now. The likelihood of them finding someone is slim.

Not true for the Alberta Party. The Alberta Party will not run anywhere it can't find a local candidate. It's part of their charm, as is their "Big Listen" process, where party members are in personal interactions with constituents about the issues that matter to them, and that any Alberta Party MLA is expected to do the same once elected. And I'm pretty certain finding a local candidate will not be hard. The Alberta Party just needs to help Highwood constituents know why they are relevant, and that will take a lot of work. (Writer's note, if you are interested in helping get started on that work, because you believe in the principles of the Alberta Party, let me know!)

Will Highwood entertain the possibility of the Alberta Party? That depends on whether or not they actually consider policy and principle.

Unless the Wildrose does a significant update of their policies in 2013, they run the risk of being the "Danielle Smith and the BoZo Eruptions" show, and soon the people of Highwood will realize that isn't enough.

Unless the PCs start showing they can actually listen to Alberta citizens, no amount of rhetoric will ever convince the Highwood constituency otherwise. They've already been down that path with the unceremonious removal of George Groeneveld as Agriculture Minister. It is a big reason why people started entertaining the idea of Danielle Smith.

So if Highwood residents really begin looking at policy, and the principles that they want their representatives to live by, the Alberta Party will be here waiting. The Alberta Party has lots of work to do, but are not going to shy away from it. That way Highwood gets the representation it deserves.

I laughed when I read an article in the Okotoks Western Wheel, followed by the editorial regarding the release of flood mitigation reports, but I didn't laugh for the reason many may think.I could have laughed because the reports were released 6 years after they should have been, and most of the recommendations have already been completed or at least started, making its release a waste of time.

I could have laughed because Wildrose leader Danielle Smith was among the first to jump on the tardiness of its release, even though she had no involvement in its actual release. I will concede, however, that she made a very valid point in that the report, had it been released 6 years ago, could have made resulting projects eligible for federal funding.

I could have laughed because Municipal Affairs Minister Doug Griffiths, the guy who is supposed to be in charge of this type of report and its release, told reporters that he had no idea it wasn't released. This is worth a solid guffaw, because people from the Highwood constituency, including retired MLA George Groenveld, have been begging for its release for approximately 6 years.

None of these are the reasons I laughed. I laughed because one person who promised during the election to get these documents released was our new MLA Danielle Smith. Smith had no hand in it. Who did get it released? The Okotoks Western Wheel staff. Who was on that staff? John Barlow, Smith's biggest opponent as PC candidate in the last election, and Editor of the newspaper (One could say he made good on his campaign promise to see the report released). Who did the Okotoks Western Wheel's editorial staff blast? The PC government.

When you can't get your Wildrose MLA to do her job representing your consituency, even if she is the leader of the opposition, and you can't get the PC government to get one simple document release right, who do you have left?

Apparently you have the Okotoks Western Wheel. Good job, guys!