SOCIAL CREDIT PLATFORM
R U READY? For education that meets the needs of students and employers?
R U READY? For first class service in health care?
R U READY? For a better share of energy resource wealth for all Albertans?
R U READY? For reasonably priced utilities?
R U READY? For affordable housing?
R U READY? For Alberta business owned by Albertans?
R U READY? For a pristine environment?
Albertans are invited to review the contents of our platform and judge for themselves if these are concerns that they share in common with us. Click here to open.
Wild R. A. Leader Doesn’t Walk the Talk
January 6, 2010
Danielle Smith has been stumping the province proclaiming that she and her Wildrose Alliance Party will bring back democracy to Alberta so that voters will have their say on how the province is run. On her first opportunity to “walk the talk”, she has failed miserably.
The MLAs of Airdrie – Chestermere and Calgary – Fish Creek who switched to the Wild R. A. were elected on ballots that presented their names and party affiliation. Electors may have voted for the individual, the party (Progressive Conservative) or the individual – party package. It is wrong to assume that most voted for the individual regardless of the party.
It is only fair to the voters in these constituencies that they be given the chance to decide if they still want these individuals to represent them under the banner of the Wild R. A.
Rob Anderson and Heather Forsyth should resign immediately and by-elections should be called as soon as possible. This would also give members of the Wild R. A. in these ridings an opportunity to decide if they want these individuals to represent their party in the campaign.
A good leader would not only promote this democratic process but insist that it be followed.
Len Skowronski
H1N1 Immunization Without Line-ups
November 9, 2009
First, there was no enforced priority on the H1N1 flu immunization, which resulted in long lines and wait times. Then only young children and pregnant women were accepted for the shots. This resulted in short or non-existent line-ups and, at times, medical personnel with no-one to immunize.
Surely there must be a better way to manage this immunization program. When I need to see my doctor or dentist, I make an appointment and receive the care I need with very little wait time at the clinic. Why wasn’t a system established that would allow Albertans to make appointments for their flu shots? A website could have been set-up whereby anyone wanting a flu shot could determine time slots available in clinics in his/her vicinity and priority grouping. The system would require the applicant to input a minimal amount of data: name, address, telephone number, date of birth and other priority grouping information such as being pregnant or having a health condition such as asthma. Several appointment alternatives would then be displayed. The applicant would select and reserve one. An appointment ID would be assigned which would be given to a registration clerk at the clinic prior to the appointment time. This would give the person access to a flu shot.
Those without internet access would be able to phone a clerk who would do the appointment search and registration for them. The result of implementing a scheme such as this would be no line-ups and an efficient utilization of immunization personnel.
Len Skowronski
Cap or Tax Bitumen Exports
November 4, 2009
A recent Canadian Energy Research Institute (CERI) oil sands study concludes that there is little economic support for upgrading bitumen in Alberta. Since bitumen must be upgraded into synthetic crude oil before it can be refined into consumer products such as gasoline, this conclusion implies that there must be economic support for upgrading our bitumen elsewhere.
In other words, it is economically feasible to export our bitumen to the USA and build upgrading plants there, yet it is not economic to build these plants in Alberta and export synthetic crude oil. Why is this so? Can it be because construction costs are lower since taxes are lower? Are the taxes lower because the USA doesn’t provide social safety nets such as universal health care and doesn’t balance its governments’ budgets?
The Alberta government must prevent this drain on our economy. The simplest way would be to legislate a cap on bitumen exports at the current level. But if this is against the government’s laissez faire approach to regulating the actions of multinational companies in Alberta then perhaps an “equalizer” tax should be charged on the export of bitumen. This tax would be calculated so that it would replace the income we are losing from the value added by upgrading.
This should also level the playing field so that upgrading in Alberta would become as economic as upgrading in the USA. Income from this tax could be used to help pay for our health care and balance our provincial budget.
Len Skowronski
Royalty-in-kind Bitumen a Drop in the Bucket
October 21, 2009
The Alberta government is planning to take up to 75,000 barrels per day of unprocessed bitumen in lieu of royalties and have these upgraded in Alberta. It has issued a call for proposals to build the plants that would upgrade this bitumen into synthetic crude oil. Meanwhile, Enbridge is building a pipeline and additional facilities to ship up to 450,000 barrels per day of bitumen to Wisconsin. Similarly, TransCanada is building a pipeline to carry 500,000 barrels of bitumen to southern markets each day. The government’s effort to get added-value for our bitumen is a drop in the bucket compared to the value we will forego if we allow the export of nearly 1 million barrels of bitumen per day for upgrading and refining in the USA.
Upgrading this bitumen in Alberta could add over $20 billion a year to our economy. Construction of the required upgrading plants would provide thousands of jobs and billions to our economy.
Bitumen exports must be capped at the current volume. The Alberta Bitumen Upgrading Company should be established. This company would be modelled along the lines of the Alberta Gas Trunk Line Company established by the Social Credit government in 1954. Bitumen producing companies that don’t have the expertise, capital or desire to be in the upgrading business would be invited to invest in this company. Albertans would be given first choice to buy shares. The Alberta government would also be a shareholder.
In order to distribute engineering, construction and operation jobs across Alberta, at least one bitumen upgrading plant would be built near each of Ft. McMurray, Grand Prairie, Edmonton, Red Deer, Calgary and Lethbridge.
Len Skowronski
Stop the $14 Billion Folly!
September 29, 2009
I call on Albertans to stand-up and demand that the provincial government stop the $14 billon folly being forced on landowners and electricity consumers. Upgrading the coal-fired electricity generation plant at Lake Wabamun and building high-voltage power transmission lines to south of Calgary is not the most practical, economical nor environmentally responsible option for meeting future electrical power needs. It would be much more efficient and cost-effective to build the power source closer to the consumer and eliminate the need to build expensive, long, high-voltage power lines. An Enmax proposal to build a coal- or gas-fired power station near Calgary is one such solution but this would still emit greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. A more environmentally friendly option would be to convert households to solar electric power.
On average, a house can be equipped with a solar electric system for $20,000. For the $14 billion budgeted to build the power lines, 700,000 homes could be made nearly self-sufficient for their electricity needs. The homeowners could be given the options of renting, leasing or buying the solar systems. Any electricity generated beyond the homeowner’s needs would be transmitted into the power grid and credited to the household account. Power from current sources would provide for extra demand during high-peak usage and cloudy days which would be debited to the household account. The resulting cost to consumers would be much less than current electricity bills and consumers would be saved from having to pay for such follies as the proposed power lines between Edmonton and Calgary.
Len Skowronski
Tickets to Wealth
September 28, 2009
Today I want to discuss the meaning of one of the most used words in the
English language. A word that denotes a very confusing concept floating around
in our heads and represents one of the fundamental cravings of humankind.
No, I’m not a “Freudian” so you can forget about the word “sex”. However, I’m just as deprived of what this word stands for as a good number of you readers out there.
You likely guessed it; the word in question is “money”.
And right now money is in the process of becoming rather scarce to many people
that need the tickets to ride on the bus we call “modern society” so that they
may feed and clothe themselves and provide for a roof over their heads.
What happens if they can’t get their hands on any of these tickets? To the south
of us here in Canada, the answer is literally “blowing in the wind” in the form of
tent cities occupied by people who can no longer afford to pay for a mortgage or
pay rent to a landlord. They have no money, no tickets to the wealth of the
society they used to belong to. They have been excommunicated because the
tickets to wealth, also called “money”, have been made scarce.
The wealth is still there, but the tickets have been withdrawn.
Its like having a bus service without any tickets. The bus is there; the road is
there; the passengers are waiting, but the ticket agent has decided that very few
tickets will be issued because he is not in the mood to hand them out today.
Except maybe a few to some of his trusted buddies so that they can ride on the
bus by themselves in comfort to the exclusion of all those waiting passengers.
But wait a minute. Is the ticket agent the legal owner of the bus, or the road,
the fuel for the bus, or even the tickets themselves? What gives him the authority to withhold the tickets from the people that built the bus, the road, and refined the fuel to put in the tank?
If you accept the notion that money, as it appears on a note, in a ledger, on a
computer screen, or wherever, is simply a ticket system to access the real wealth
created in modern society and has no inherent value apart from that, the world
suddenly changes. If you share in the belief that every human being, by virtue of being a member of society, has a claim on this wealth in the form of a certain number of tickets
then there can be no valid reason for tent cities with vacant homes in the background. The wealth is there but the tickets to that wealth are being withheld.
By whom? And for what reasons?
Helge Nome
Albertans Lose Democratic Power to Electric Power Companies
August 3, 2009
There is an old saying: "The Devil is in the details". That is certainly true with respect to legislation proposed by the Stelmach government to amend Alberta's Hydro and Electric Energy Act to override the power of the Alberta Utilities Commission in deciding whether an electric transmission line meets the need of Alberta, or is in the public interest.
The proposed legislation, currently sailing under the banner "Bill 050", was introduced into the Alberta Legislature on June 1 and seeks to amend various acts, including the Hydro and Electric Energy Act as detailed below:
"Hydro and Electric Energy Act
Amends RSA 2000 cH-16
3(1) The Hydro and Electric Energy Act is amended by this
section.
(2) The following is added before section 14:
Critical transmission infrastructure
13.1(1) In this section, “critical transmission infrastructure”
means critical transmission infrastructure as defined in the
Electric Utilities Act.
(2) The construction, connection and operation of a
transmission line or part of a transmission line that is designated
as critical transmission infrastructure is required to meet the
needs of Alberta and is in the public interest.
(3) Section 19 is amended by adding the following after
subsection (1):
(1.1) Notwithstanding subsection (1), the Commission shall not
refuse an approval of a transmission line or part of a
transmission line designated as critical transmission
infrastructure as defined in the Electric Utilities Act on the basis
that, in its opinion, it does not meet the needs of Alberta or is
not in the public interest."
This last clause above (1.1) is the eye opener. In simple language it states that the impact of a transmission line on Alberta and Albertans does not matter. It is simply irrelevant.
What can one conclude from this kind of proposed legislation? Who on earth is writing this stuff? Who has something to gain from this?
Why are we irrelevant? Simple: Because some other people think that they are a lot more important than we are.
Who are they?
We know that Alberta is a big box loaded with potential energy, which is exactly what the world wants right now. It is simply a matter of getting that energy to where it is wanted with a minimum amount of hassle. We are part of that potential hassle, so steamrolling us with laws that pave the way for the rape
of our province makes perfect sense. Once the laws are enacted by the Stelmach puppies (or energy puppets), our own legal system will prevent us from doing anything about it.
Sweet, isn't it?
Helge Nome
Will Albertans Subsidize Electrical Power Exports?
July 27, 2009
The Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO) is planning additional electric power lines between Edmonton and Calgary. Two 500 kilovolt direct current lines are proposed, one through the western part of the province and one further
to the east. And Alberta's electricity consumers get to pay for these lines, as part of our monthly billing.
The question that comes to mind is: Do we need all that extra electricity here in Alberta, or is most of it designed to go elsewhere? The AESO says that people encountered in their public consultation told them to "think big" so as to avoid interrupting peoples lives with more transmission lines later on.
I wonder, who told them to think big, Alberta consumers or power exporters? It would be very convenient for exporters to have a freely provided highway for their energy going south, wouldn't it? We pay for their highway.
Another suspicious element in this whole picture is an old "friend" of mine, Bill 19, which ensures that any meaningful public opposition to projects like the new power lines can result in jail time for those that oppose them. In fact, the AESO brags that this legislation was introduced by the Government of Alberta on
June1st to pave the way for their projects. And I distinctly remember that government MLAs strenuously claimed that Bill 19 was for ring roads around our large cities.
It goes to show you just how far down the hole the Stelmach Government has sunk. They simply say what they are being told to say by the bureaucrats that are working on behalf of Big Energy. That is what it boils down to. And Ed Stelmach, just for good measure, is giving away $2 billion of our dollars to the same people so as to help them develop carbon capture technology. I wonder what board
positions have been promised to him after he leaves public office?
How long are you prepared to put up with these pension seeking politicians that have sold their souls to Big Energy?
Helge Nome
An Alternative to Stelmach’s Trivial Pursuit
July 25, 2009
Premier Stelmach is proposing to upgrade 75,000 bpd of bitumen in order to reach his goal of upgrading 72% of the bitumen taken from Alberta’s oil sands versus the current 59%. Yet Enbridge is working on a pipeline that will ship 450,000 to 800,000 bpd of bitumen to plants in USA.
Upgrading 450,000 bpd in Alberta would add over $20,000,000,000 a year to our economy. Building these plants would provide thousands of jobs and billions to our economy.
Let me suggest an alternative to this rather trivial pursuit of added-value to our bitumen. First, cap bitumen exports to the current volume. Inform Enbridge that there will not be a supply of bitumen to flow though their planned pipeline.
Secondly, establish the Alberta Bitumen Upgrading Company (ABUC; invest A BUC; save a trillion). Model this company along the lines of the Alberta Gas Trunk Line Company established by the Social Credit government in 1954. Bitumen producing companies that don’t have the expertise, capital or desire to be in the upgrading business would be invited to invest in this company. Albertans would be given first choice to buy shares. The Alberta government would also be a shareholder.
The $70 B being managed by the Alberta Investment Management Company (AIMCo) should be deposited in the Alberta Treasury Branch (ATB). Since the major Canadian banks lend out more than 30 times their cash reserves, the ATB could do likewise and lend out $2,100 billion ($2.1 trillion). This should finance all the upgrading plants we need.
Len Skowronski
SoCreds Agree with Lougheed
July 17, 2009
At a recent international engineering conference in Calgary, Peter Lougheed observed that the rapid growth of oil sands development over the last decade resulted in a high-cost economy in Alberta. He recommended that future oil sands mining be limited to one project at a time. Since Premier Stelmach has a dearth of talent and wisdom in his caucus, he would do well to take the advice of this elder statesman.
Stelmach should remember the state of affairs in Alberta before the recession and downturn in oil and gas prices. House prices and rents sky-rocketed, so that average income families could no longer afford to buy homes and low-income Albertans could not afford to pay their rents. Alberta had the highest rate of inflation in Canada which meant Albertans were paying more for almost everything but particularly for food, clothing, utilities and property taxes. Because of the high demand for personnel to build and service the many oil sands plants, there was a shortage of workers in other sectors of the economy. Small business owners had an especially difficult time recruiting personnel and paying them the inflated wages that they expected.
It would be a shame if the government allowed this to happen again when oil and gas prices rebound. Oil sands projects should be developed serially rather than in parallel. Each project should provide for the upgrading of its bitumen to synthetic crude within Alberta. This pace of development could be handled by Alberta’s current labour force without an influx of outsiders causing a strain on our services and infrastructure.
Len Skowronski
Stelmach Puppies Barking Up Wrong Tree
July 13, 2009
The recent arbitrary closure of seven helipads at Alberta hospitals, including that of the Royal Alexandra Hospital in Edmonton and the Sundre Hospital, goes to show how things have slid out of control during the reign of Premier Stelmach and his associates. Some unnamed provincial bureaucrat evidently took it upon him/herself to issue the order based on guidelines provided by Transport Canada. However, to date, no one seems to have been able to pin the blame on anybody in particular. It is probably a classic case of “duck and pass the buck”.
This is only one of a series of blunders taking place on the watch of the Stelmach Puppies. Several bills have been enacted into law that progressively transfers power away from people across Alberta into the hands of Edmonton bureaucrats, the new Alberta Health Services Board being a good example. Others include Bills 19 (The Land Grab Act), 36 (The “Walk All Over Municipal Governments” Act) and 44 ( The “Shut Up The Teachers” Act). And the latest is a private members bill to set up a Municipal Auditor's Office to do random audits of municipal books after they have already been audited by perfectly qualified auditors. And the naïve MLA that tabled this bill reportedly estimated an annual cost of $400,000-$700,000. How about trying $4 million-$7 million?
At the same time the people of Sundre have been waiting for 4 years for the Alberta Government to make up its mind about restoring the Red Deer River back into its old channel before it hits the town, head on, in its next major flood.
It is pretty obvious, even to the most casual observer, that the Stelmach Puppies are barking up the wrong tree: “The squirrel is preening himself in that old spruce tree over there. Yes, there! He hasn't even been near the new ones you are planting!”
Helge Nome
Stop the Flood of Two-Tiered Health Care into Alberta!
June 28, 2009
Re: “Private clinic eroding health care, say critics”, Calgary Herald, June 27, 2009
First, the Copeman Healthcare Centre created a crack in the dike protecting us from a flood of two-tiered health care into Alberta. Now Provital Health and Wellness will widen that crack. Soon other medical clinics will join the flow to get an easy $3000 per client by requiring some non-standardized preventive medical consultation as the gateway to doctor access. The opportunity to make an appointment with a family doctor will be gone for those who cannot afford to pay the $3000 annual fee. They will have to be content to go to “walk-in” clinics and wait for hours to see a doctor.
Although allowing these fees may be within a strict legal interpretation of the Canada Health Act, it certainly is not within the spirit of the Act. Requiring a person to pay a $3000 annual fee for non-essential services in order to access publicly-funded essential services is morally and ethically wrong.
What may we expect next? Will firemen require that a homeowner have a $3000 annual fire prevention inspection in order to guarantee that they will respond within minutes of a fire alarm rather than hours? Will the police require a $3000 annual burglary prevention consultation in order to guarantee that they will respond to a 911 breaking-and-entry call in a timely fashion?
If the Canada Health Care Act does not have the muscle to curtail this health care injustice then the Alberta government should enact legislation that does.
Len Skowronski
Invest the $3 Billion into Alberta Junior Oil and Gas Companies
June 26, 2009
Re: “Petro investors favour Manitoba” and “Alberta drilling incentive program extended by one year”, Edmonton Journal, June 25, 2009
It is no surprise that the petroleum executives surveyed by the Fraser Institute prefer dealing with the provinces that keep less of their resource wealth so that the producers can gain higher profits. It is their job to make as much profit as possible so that the investors will receive large dividends and in return will pay these executives millions of dollars in salaries and bonuses.
Conversely, it is the job of the governments of these provinces to ensure that the owners of these resources, that is, the citizens of these provinces, keep a fair share of their resource wealth. Perhaps it is not that Alberta’s royalties are too high but rather that the other provinces’ royalties are too low.
Alberta’s Premier and Energy Minister should meet with their counterparts in these provinces and convince them to bring their royalties in line with Alberta’s so that the oil and gas companies cannot play one province against another.
Also, rather than giving up $3 billion in royalties over the next two years to encourage drilling, Alberta should set-up an oil and gas investment fund equal to this amount. This fund would provide equity capital for exploration and development projects executed by small Alberta-owned and operated oil and gas companies and an opportunity for all Albertans to share the profits.
Len Skowronski
Nuclear Experts Have No Vested Interest in Alberta Nuclear Power?
June 23, 2009
Letter to the Editor of the Peace River Record Gazette:
I read with both amazement and amusement the Letter to the Editor written by Professor William C. Olsen about the merits of nuclear power. The letter was published in the June 16 edition of the Record Gazette.
In his letter, Professor Olsen was kind enough to give a detailed background description of the qualifications and affiliations of the members on the Panel of Nuclear Experts: Dr. Harvey Andre, retired politician and closely involved with the oil and gas industry. Dr. Joseph Doucet, Holder of Enbridge Professorship in Energy Policy at the U of A. Dr. John Luxat, Nuclear Safety Engineer and current member of the board of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. Dr. Harrie Vredenburg, Holder of the Suncor Energy Chair in Competitive Strategy and Sustainable Development at the U of C.
Professor Olson goes on to say that these people “do not have any vested interest in the nuclear power industry in Alberta”. That is an amazing statement given the background of the people, as described above.
In the final paragraph of his letter, Professor Olsen says:” If only those people who are so opposed to nuclear power would do some unbiased literature search for themselves on both sides of the question, I am sure that most would be convinced that nuclear power is a clean, safe, limitless, environmentally safe, source of electrical energy that will serve humanity indefinitely”.
What Professor Olsen has very ably demonstrated in his letter is that he, and his fellow academics serving on the government appointed panel, are about as biased as it is possible to be in relation to the desirability of nuclear power generation in Alberta.
Helge Nome
Alberta Health Services Super-board Cuts Nursing Jobs
June 10, 2009
The prime reason for the poor access to health care services in Alberta is the shortage of medical personnel, especially doctors and nurses. The trend towards this shortage began in the 1990s when Alberta along with other provinces decided that the way to control health care costs was to reduce the number of medical personnel graduated. Seats in the post-secondary institutions were reduced. We are currently suffering from this unfortunate decision.
It seemed that the PC government had realized the folly of this approach when they recently increased the number of spaces for medical students in Alberta. Now we are graduating more nurses but all of a sudden there are no positions for them in Alberta even though we still have a shortage.
This is another instance of the knee-jerk response of this government to problems. There is no long-term plan for providing the health care services that Albertans want. The government has experienced a decline in income, so the immediate reaction is to cut employees and services without thinking of what the long term effects may be.
Albertans should be consulted to determine the level of service they require. A plan should be developed for providing this level of service including the personnel, facilities and projected costs. Albertans should be asked how they wish to pay for this service: resource royalties, income taxes, a health-care tax or some other option. A consensus of the majority of Albertans should be obtained through a plebiscite and then acted upon.
Len Skowronski
Leader
Alberta Social Credit Party
Calgary, Alberta
403 288-9695
www.socialcredit.com
Socred Leader to run in Calgary – Glenmore by-election
May 25, 2009
Earl Solberg, President of the Alberta Social Credit Party, is pleased to announce that the Leader of the Party, Len Skowronski, will be running in the Calgary – Glenmore by-election which is expected to be held in the fall. Len is a most suitable candidate to represent the Calgary – Glenmore riding as MLA. He has lived in Calgary for 35 years and has served on the executive of his community association ensuring that development and services in the community were up to the level expected by the residents.
Len is concerned, along with many other Albertans, that the current government has become complacent and arrogant. The government and its bureaucracy have succumbed to the “Big Brother” complex evidenced by their lack of consultation while developing new legislation on human and property rights. They have mismanaged and squandered our vast resource wealth.
Len looks forward to representing the Calgary – Glenmore constituency and leading the way to good government as Albertans were fortunate to have during the Social Credit era.
Earl Solberg