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.
The True Colors of the Wild RA
July 1, 2010
What are the true colours of the Wild RA? Definitely not green and blue. They stole these colors from the Alberta Social Credit Party. Perhaps brown and yellow are more appropriate.
Brown for the oil companies that recruited Danielle Smith to lead the Wild RA so that they could grab even more of Albertans’ wealth. Yet, she had the audacity to state at the party’s recent convention, "You don't sit on the world's largest oil reserves and get treated as a junior partner. Yet somehow, this government has managed to achieve that." Are we to believe she would stand-up to her oil and gas puppet-masters and take control of the development of the oilsands? I don’t think so. She didn’t supplement her criticism with any constructive suggestion as to how her party would manage oilsands development.
Yellow for the Wild RA’s cowardice. They are afraid to adopt policies that represent their true beliefs because this may chase away voters. This was confirmed by a convention delegate who supported a resolution on the right to bear firearms but concluded, "I'm just worried about how this may be received in the public and portrayed in the media, so I'm voting no." Danielle Smith reinforced this attitude when she stated, "You can't get any of your agenda implemented if you can't get elected."
So what is their real agenda? What are their true colours? They won’t tell us because this may scare us away. That in itself is a frightful thought!
Len Skowronski
Alberta Gives Up $1.5B in Royalties
May 30, 2010
Energy Minister Ron Liepert is giving away $1.5B in royalties over the next three years, hoping that the oil and gas industry will increase drilling and create more jobs. The annual royalty relief will increase to $1.2 billion in 2012-13 and will continue at this or a higher level in subsequent years, depending on the price of oil and gas.
We have not received any guarantee that additional money will be invested in Alberta in the near future, but he hopes it will. Is it worth giving up more of our wealth for possible immediate jobs for those who explore and drill for oil and gas? Opportunities for drilling are becoming scarce in this world. If we kept our royalty rates at the level set in 2007, the oil and gas companies would still eventually drill here because there would be nowhere else to go. The very same multinational companies that have lobbied for lower government take in Alberta are drilling wells in countries that have much higher takes and risk.
Mr. Liepert needs to be reminded that being Energy Minister does not mean that he is working for the energy companies but rather that he is working for Albertans to insure that they receive the maximum benefits from their energy resources. Perhaps it is not fair to place all the blame for this cowardly retreat on Liepert and his PC Party. Much of the blame must be shared by Danielle Smith and her Wild Bunch. She allowed herself and her party to be used by the oil and gas executives to coerce the Alberta PCs to backtrack on their promise to keep a better share of our oil and gas wealth for the benefit of all Albertans.
Len Skowronski
Royalty Appeasement of the Oil and Gas Masters
March 12, 2010
There are at least two questions that Albertans need answered regarding the government’s royalty give-away. First, is it worthwhile to sacrifice $785 million per year in royalty revenue so that the PCs can govern for another term and keep the Wild R. A. at bay? Maybe it’s a prudent investment, for if the Wild R. A. gained power, they would probably give away much more of Albertan’s wealth. But it is a capitulation to the multinational oil and gas companies that took over the fringe party and infused it with funds. Then they installed a pretty puppet who travelled throughout the province and convinced a considerable portion of the populace that all our ills were due to the increase in royalty rates. This scared the PC premier and cabinet who realized that they could lose their cushy jobs in the next election. So thus we have the royalty retreat.
Secondly, should Albertans forego $785 million per year in royalty revenue to create 13,000 jobs? This comes to over $60,000 per job. Wouldn’t it be better just to have a lottery among all the unemployed and low-income Albertans, giving 13,000 winners an income of $60,000 per year? At least this money would stay in Alberta instead of going to the multinational investors, many of whom are foreigners. Perhaps a better alternative would be to put this capital into an investment fund that would enable Alberta-owned oil and gas companies to develop our resources and keep the wealth in Alberta.
Len Skowronski
Energy Minister is a Loser in the Oil Game
March 4, 2010
A recent article in the Calgary Herald informed readers that more bitumen upgrading was leaving Alberta. Our provincial energy minister, Ron Liepert, was quoted as saying: "We have to play the hand we're dealt with internationally. We're literally at the whim of the international marketplace."
Who determines the hand we're dealt? Isn't it time we became the dealer and stacked the deck in our favour?
We Albertans, the owners of our oil sands, have the power to do so. It is the responsibility of our government to use this power on our behalf. We should take a lesson from the countries that formed OPEC and became major drivers of the international marketplace.
The Americans desperately need our oil. Of course, they would sooner upgrade bitumen in their refineries, adding thousands of jobs and billions of dollars to their economy. But why shouldn't the jobs and wealth be kept in Alberta? Less return on their investment is not a good reason.
What would happen if we said that no additional bitumen could be exported and that all new projects had to provide for upgrading to synthetic crude? Perhaps foreign investment would be curtailed for a while. Is this necessarily bad? I don't think so. For as the world supply of oil decreases and demand increases, we will find that oil companies and investors will be glad to come and develop our oil sands on our terms.
So Mr. Liepert, put on your poker face, call their bluff and draw the aces from Alberta's deck.
Len Skowronski
Alberta Budget 2010: We Should Have More Revenue
February 10, 2010
I attended the February 9th session of the Alberta Legislative Assembly to hear the reading of the budget. I appreciated the budget’s increased funding for health care and education, the sustained funding for social services and the trimming of fat from other departments. Also, given the current economic situation, it was probably the right time to use the Sustainability Fund to provide for the short-fall of revenues versus expenses. But if the development of our oil and gas resources was managed to benefit Albertans ahead of the multi-national companies, we would have had the required revenues.
Alberta has the natural resources and manpower to develop these resources. Our problem is that we have become dependent on the multi-national companies and banks to supply the capital for this development.
Because of the short-term planning of these establishments and their vindictive campaign to punish us for raising the royalty rates, they withheld their investment. This resulted in unemployed oil and gas workers and a financial downturn in the businesses that provided goods and services to these Albertans.
What we need is a crown corporation, similar to the Alberta Energy Corporation that the Klein regime privatized, to take up the slack left by the multinationals. This company could joint-venture with Alberta-owned oil and gas companies in drilling programs that would continue employing workers in this sector. Also, this company could lead the building of bitumen upgrading plants, taking advantage of the abundant supply of workers and low-cost materials. Funding for these projects would be loaned by the Alberta Treasury Branch.
If this approach had been taken by the Alberta government, the additional taxes gained as a result of this development would have more than compensated for the revenue shortfall estimated in the government’s budget.
Len Skowronski
Stelmach Could Learn from the United Arab Emirates
January 21, 2010
I hope that Premier Ed Stelmach's participation in the World Energy Future Summit in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (U. A.E.) will benefit Albertans. When he met with the U.A.E. energy minister, hopefully he learned how the U.A.E. has managed to keep a much larger portion of its oil and gas wealth than has Alberta. After meeting with representatives of the Abu Dhabi National Energy Company, he should now realize the advantage of having a state-owned company involved in all major oil and gas exploration and production projects.
He can now pass-on this wisdom to his newly appointed energy minister, who is working on the competitiveness review.
Before sitting in the Petroleum Club with the executives of the oil and gas industry, Energy Minister Ron Liepert should meet with his counterparts in B.C. and Saskatchewan, explaining and negotiating as follows:
The oil and gas companies are using the lower royalties in their provinces to blackmail Alberta to lower its royalty rates. Alberta is seeking to level the playing field between itself and its adjacent provinces. This could be done by Alberta lowering its royalty rates to those of B.C. and Saskatchewan or lower. Or B.C. and Saskatchewan could increase their rates to match Alberta's. Both cases would result in a shift of some drilling activity from B.C. and Saskatchewan to Alberta. In the first case, Albertans would lose and the oil and gas companies would gain. In the second case, the citizens of all three provinces would win.
Len Skowronski
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