‘Clean’ energy source doing ‘dirty’ work
Originally published in FFWD September 13, 2007 by Drew Anderson in Viewpoint
On the same day the Calgary Herald ran a front-page story on Energy Alberta Corp. applying for a licence to build Western Canada’s first nuclear reactor, it also ran a short story, tucked into the back of the front section, detailing lingering fallout issues in Finland stemming from the Chernobyl disaster more than 20 years ago.
Over the course of the next couple of days, there was debate around the positive and negative implications of going nuclear, but the debate was on the wrong track right from the beginning. It is premature to discuss the issues of clean power and environmental sensitivities in relation to the plant. Rather, it is the issue of where that energy is going, and for what purpose, that ought to be the initial focus of dialogue.
Energy Alberta is seeking a permit from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to build two twin Candu ACR-1000 reactors on Lake Cardinal, just west of Peace River. The cost of the project is estimated to be $6.2 billion, though nuclear development is notorious for cost overruns. According to Energy Alberta president and co-chairman Wayne Henuset, 70 per cent of the energy (2,200 megawatts from the first reactor alone) produced by the facility will go to an unspecified corporate customer, most likely a tar sands operator.
Debate so far has focused on the costs and benefits of nuclear power, specifically as it relates to the environment. Some claim nuclear energy is the cleanest solution to meet our energy needs, while others say it is a lesser-of-two-evils solution and leaves a toxic legacy in its wake. There are valid arguments on both sides. While nuclear energy does not produce carbon emissions through its production of energy, it still generates harmful waste that lingers for millennia, and the reactor drinks enormous amounts of water. The true debate, however, is how far we want tar sand development to progress and at what cost.
Development is now leading debate in this province rather than the more rational direction of debate leading development. It is often difficult to see the long-term repercussions of the decisions that we make, but this is not one of those times. There are already immense problems in the northern communities that border the tar sands: insufficient infrastructure, lack of housing, health problems and environmental degradation on par with the worst the rest of the world has to offer. According to the government of Alberta, this is only the tip of the iceberg.
While the tar sands cover an area twice the size of New Brunswick, only around 10 per cent of the resource has been exploited to date. While in 2005 the tar sands produced 966,000 barrels of oil per day, the provincial government forecasts three million barrels per day by 2020 and five million by 2030.
What are we going to do with the majority of that supposedly clean power spewing out of the nuclear reactors? We are going to dig up more earth and inject steam deep into crevices to produce more oil to feed the North American petroleum diet.
Albertans are being asked to risk nuclear power — the potential costs, the toxic waste and the jitters that accompany a power plant that could kill a great number of us if not managed properly — all for the benefit of another tar sands operator reaping billions in profits. Regular Albertans will only get 30 per cent of the energy, but will have to bear all of the social costs that accompany it.
Once we decide whether we want to expand tar sands development to the point where pit mines and tailing ponds cover the full extent of Alberta’s deposits — 140,200 square kilometres underlying boreal forest — then finally, the debate can turn to whether we want nuclear energy to power it.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Cops at the core
Seeing Calgary’s downtown through police eyes
Originally published September 20, 2007 in FFWD by Drew Anderson in City
On September 10, Calgary city council unanimously approved a motion by Mayor Dave Bronconnier that called for an increased police presence in the downtown core and Beltline. His plan, which still must go through budget negotiations, would see 25 new bylaw officers, 10 new police officers and possibly closed-circuit cameras on the downtown beat — known as District One to the police that call this area their workplace.
Riding through the darkened streets of the district with Constables Gord Denison and Roland Stewart is like looking at your city through a television camera. The streets you ride on, walk past or drive by seem a little more menacing through the perceptive eyes of the police.
Police maintain a fine balance, acting as punishers and guardians, disciplinarians and social workers, a balance played out in every individual encounter and at the discretion of the officers. Sometimes that discretion is good, and sometimes it’s bad.
Before the van even leaves the alley behind police headquarters on Sixth Ave. and First St. S.E., a call comes over the radio about an assault — something about pepper spray. In less than 10 minutes the van pulls into an alley behind the bottle depot on Ninth Ave. S.E. in Inglewood and finds a distraught man, with a sore face, angrily moving shopping carts around. In a turf dispute, he has trespassed from his alley home into a nearby yard and gotten dosed for it.
Crime rates have been dropping across Canada for a few years now and Calgary is no different. According to Statistics Canada, the national crime rate hit a 25-year low in 2006, largely due to a drop in non-violent crime. Alberta witnessed one of the largest drops in the country at five per cent from 2005. Total drug crimes across the country increased by two per cent.
Steward and Denison have a keen eye and a deep understanding of what happens — who knows who and what looks out of the ordinary — on streets where everything appears to fit that description.
A suspicious car passes the paddy wagon on a seedy stretch of 14th Ave. Just east of Fourth St., Steward notices a passenger not wearing a shirt, unusual given the low-teen temperature on this late-summer night. After a quick U-turn, the van is speeding down the narrow street to find the vehicle, now pulled over and with its occupants hunching below the head rests. Soon, the trunk of the police car is littered with the tools of the trade: a homemade crack pipe, butane, bent spoons, needles, a car antennae (perfect as a whipping weapon) and an empty Tylenol container — a typical haul for the area according to the officers.
There are no actual drugs, and after issuing some tickets to the occupants, they are let allowed to drive away, only to be stopped a few blocks later when the car is reported stolen. Apparently the driver’s sister is not as generous as the man led officers to believe.
“It’s frustrating,” says Denison at the end of the night. “The courts don’t take the drugs seriously.” Both partners agree that the revolving door they see operate between the street and the courts is the least enjoyable part of their job.
At the Calgary Remand Centre, issues of overcrowding are putting a strain on the justice system. Recently, a man convicted of sexual assault of a minor was released upon sentencing after his time served in remand was measured as three times the length it would be in a regular prison. The credit was based on the overcrowded conditions of the centre, where three men are often crammed into rooms designed for two. Based on this calculation, the man had already surpassed his sentence.
This isn’t the only place in the city with a space crunch. At 11:30 p.m., the Calgary Drop-In Centre is at capacity, with men sleeping shoulder to shoulder on makeshift mattresses on the floor. The officers are there to wake up a man missing from the Rockyview General Hospital psychiatric ward; they say to stay close. There are people out front, waiting for a bed, sleeping on the ground. A man shivers on the concrete, but it’s impossible to tell if it’s because of the air temperature.
Halfway to the hospital, the officers are told the psychiatric patient has actually been discharged and it’s back to the Drop-In Centre, where his bed is, luckily, still available.
After a spate of violence in August, and with a civic election campaign right around the corner, crime has become a major issue in the city and, therefore, local politics. A new police chief, Rick Hanson, was named on September 10, coinciding with the approval of the new bylaw and police officers.
Spending four hours with Constables Steward and Denison, there are no arrests, no handcuffs, no fights, no serious crimes; their job almost seems like a dangerous, beefed-up, gun-toting hall patrol. Both men say their primary job is driving around and looking for stuff, keeping an eye out in case something does happen or a suspicious car drives by.
“Where are we supposed to put these guys?” asks Denison after calming the early evening turf war in the Inglewood alley, reflecting a general frustration with the city’s homelessness problem and an inability to stamp out crime. Whether it is in the downtown, the Beltline, Ramsay or Inglewood, the officers agree they are just pushing the problem from one area to another and back again.
Originally published September 20, 2007 in FFWD by Drew Anderson in City
On September 10, Calgary city council unanimously approved a motion by Mayor Dave Bronconnier that called for an increased police presence in the downtown core and Beltline. His plan, which still must go through budget negotiations, would see 25 new bylaw officers, 10 new police officers and possibly closed-circuit cameras on the downtown beat — known as District One to the police that call this area their workplace.
Riding through the darkened streets of the district with Constables Gord Denison and Roland Stewart is like looking at your city through a television camera. The streets you ride on, walk past or drive by seem a little more menacing through the perceptive eyes of the police.
Police maintain a fine balance, acting as punishers and guardians, disciplinarians and social workers, a balance played out in every individual encounter and at the discretion of the officers. Sometimes that discretion is good, and sometimes it’s bad.
Before the van even leaves the alley behind police headquarters on Sixth Ave. and First St. S.E., a call comes over the radio about an assault — something about pepper spray. In less than 10 minutes the van pulls into an alley behind the bottle depot on Ninth Ave. S.E. in Inglewood and finds a distraught man, with a sore face, angrily moving shopping carts around. In a turf dispute, he has trespassed from his alley home into a nearby yard and gotten dosed for it.
Crime rates have been dropping across Canada for a few years now and Calgary is no different. According to Statistics Canada, the national crime rate hit a 25-year low in 2006, largely due to a drop in non-violent crime. Alberta witnessed one of the largest drops in the country at five per cent from 2005. Total drug crimes across the country increased by two per cent.
Steward and Denison have a keen eye and a deep understanding of what happens — who knows who and what looks out of the ordinary — on streets where everything appears to fit that description.
A suspicious car passes the paddy wagon on a seedy stretch of 14th Ave. Just east of Fourth St., Steward notices a passenger not wearing a shirt, unusual given the low-teen temperature on this late-summer night. After a quick U-turn, the van is speeding down the narrow street to find the vehicle, now pulled over and with its occupants hunching below the head rests. Soon, the trunk of the police car is littered with the tools of the trade: a homemade crack pipe, butane, bent spoons, needles, a car antennae (perfect as a whipping weapon) and an empty Tylenol container — a typical haul for the area according to the officers.
There are no actual drugs, and after issuing some tickets to the occupants, they are let allowed to drive away, only to be stopped a few blocks later when the car is reported stolen. Apparently the driver’s sister is not as generous as the man led officers to believe.
“It’s frustrating,” says Denison at the end of the night. “The courts don’t take the drugs seriously.” Both partners agree that the revolving door they see operate between the street and the courts is the least enjoyable part of their job.
At the Calgary Remand Centre, issues of overcrowding are putting a strain on the justice system. Recently, a man convicted of sexual assault of a minor was released upon sentencing after his time served in remand was measured as three times the length it would be in a regular prison. The credit was based on the overcrowded conditions of the centre, where three men are often crammed into rooms designed for two. Based on this calculation, the man had already surpassed his sentence.
This isn’t the only place in the city with a space crunch. At 11:30 p.m., the Calgary Drop-In Centre is at capacity, with men sleeping shoulder to shoulder on makeshift mattresses on the floor. The officers are there to wake up a man missing from the Rockyview General Hospital psychiatric ward; they say to stay close. There are people out front, waiting for a bed, sleeping on the ground. A man shivers on the concrete, but it’s impossible to tell if it’s because of the air temperature.
Halfway to the hospital, the officers are told the psychiatric patient has actually been discharged and it’s back to the Drop-In Centre, where his bed is, luckily, still available.
After a spate of violence in August, and with a civic election campaign right around the corner, crime has become a major issue in the city and, therefore, local politics. A new police chief, Rick Hanson, was named on September 10, coinciding with the approval of the new bylaw and police officers.
Spending four hours with Constables Steward and Denison, there are no arrests, no handcuffs, no fights, no serious crimes; their job almost seems like a dangerous, beefed-up, gun-toting hall patrol. Both men say their primary job is driving around and looking for stuff, keeping an eye out in case something does happen or a suspicious car drives by.
“Where are we supposed to put these guys?” asks Denison after calming the early evening turf war in the Inglewood alley, reflecting a general frustration with the city’s homelessness problem and an inability to stamp out crime. Whether it is in the downtown, the Beltline, Ramsay or Inglewood, the officers agree they are just pushing the problem from one area to another and back again.
CSO in Calgary
Originally published in Beltline Buzz
By: Drew Anderson
City Council unanimously approved a motion to have 25
more bylaw officers and 10 more police officers patrol
downtown and the Beltline. The resolution marks the
resurgence of a successful pilot project that was cancelled
two years ago.
The pilot project was centered on bylaw officers, known as
community support officers (CSO), walking a beat through
the core and the Beltline. They deal with complaints and
make their presence known.
“It was an extremely successful program. In fact, even now,
people are approaching me asking when are they going
to bring back this project?” said Marilyn Arber, executive
director of the Community Life Improvement Council (CLIC),
an organization that helped initiate the idea. “CSO gives
people a much greater perception of safety.”
CSO is based on the broken window theory, the idea that
when you maintain an area and reduce the perception of
crime and degradation, major crime also subsides.
Preventing things like graffiti, vandalism and public drinking
helps give a sense of safety to an otherwise threatening area.
It also allows police officers to focus on more serious issues.
“We found that when the bylaw guys got things under
control, it helped free up some police time. It also helped
restore the faith of the citizens in that the perception of crime
stopped,” said Bill Bruce, director of bylaw services for the
city.
If the new officers are approved through city council, Bruce
said, they will be on patrol by January of 2008 and will
function much as before, though with some lessons under
their belts.
“We learned a few things, so we’ll be sitting down between
October and November, working this out.” he said.
Inspector Bob Ritchie from District 1, which includes the
Beltline, echoes support of the pilot and the potential of the
program.
“I think that bylaw working in consultation with our officers
will only enhance our ability to effectively patrol the area,”
he said.
“We enjoyed that collaboration, and we look forward to it in
the future.”
Terminating the CSO project after the pilot was contentious.
CSO was universally accepted as successful.
According to Bruce it was a funding issue.
“The program was a joint project between the Province
of Alberta, the solicitor general, and the City of Calgary
and Calgary Police Service. So basically the funding from
the province was limited and there was no more money
forthcoming. So we were kind of stuck,” he said.
“There was an interest in continuing it, but then the province
changed solicitor generals after Harvey Cenaiko was set to
go with a two year extension.”
Arber also said that there was talk of extending the
program to better evaluate its success before the change in
government.
“Mr. Cenaiko had indicated that sustainable funding was
going to be provided and then, of course, with the change
in government and in cabinet positions, it just fell by the
wayside,” she said.
This fact is denied by the office of the Solicitor General.
“I’m going to have to disagree with that statement,” said
Andy Wiler, a spokesperson for the solicitor’s general’s
office. “What we did, is we funded the initial pilot projects
both in Edmonton and in Calgary, and really the pilot
projects were set up to allow the cities to determine the
effectiveness of the program.”
Wiler said that specific programs are under the purview of
the cities and that those decisions are not a provincial matter.
“While we support enforcement efforts in Calgary through
municipal policing assistance grants and by returning fine
revenue, enforcement options within the cities is a city
responsibility. They have to decide whether it’s a program
they feel is worthwhile.”
He said that a similar program in Edmonton was maintained
after the end of the pilot phase.
“CSO worked very well in our community,” said Beltline
president Rob Taylor. “We really need it back.”
The new program is not dependent on dedicated provincial
funding.
By: Drew Anderson
City Council unanimously approved a motion to have 25
more bylaw officers and 10 more police officers patrol
downtown and the Beltline. The resolution marks the
resurgence of a successful pilot project that was cancelled
two years ago.
The pilot project was centered on bylaw officers, known as
community support officers (CSO), walking a beat through
the core and the Beltline. They deal with complaints and
make their presence known.
“It was an extremely successful program. In fact, even now,
people are approaching me asking when are they going
to bring back this project?” said Marilyn Arber, executive
director of the Community Life Improvement Council (CLIC),
an organization that helped initiate the idea. “CSO gives
people a much greater perception of safety.”
CSO is based on the broken window theory, the idea that
when you maintain an area and reduce the perception of
crime and degradation, major crime also subsides.
Preventing things like graffiti, vandalism and public drinking
helps give a sense of safety to an otherwise threatening area.
It also allows police officers to focus on more serious issues.
“We found that when the bylaw guys got things under
control, it helped free up some police time. It also helped
restore the faith of the citizens in that the perception of crime
stopped,” said Bill Bruce, director of bylaw services for the
city.
If the new officers are approved through city council, Bruce
said, they will be on patrol by January of 2008 and will
function much as before, though with some lessons under
their belts.
“We learned a few things, so we’ll be sitting down between
October and November, working this out.” he said.
Inspector Bob Ritchie from District 1, which includes the
Beltline, echoes support of the pilot and the potential of the
program.
“I think that bylaw working in consultation with our officers
will only enhance our ability to effectively patrol the area,”
he said.
“We enjoyed that collaboration, and we look forward to it in
the future.”
Terminating the CSO project after the pilot was contentious.
CSO was universally accepted as successful.
According to Bruce it was a funding issue.
“The program was a joint project between the Province
of Alberta, the solicitor general, and the City of Calgary
and Calgary Police Service. So basically the funding from
the province was limited and there was no more money
forthcoming. So we were kind of stuck,” he said.
“There was an interest in continuing it, but then the province
changed solicitor generals after Harvey Cenaiko was set to
go with a two year extension.”
Arber also said that there was talk of extending the
program to better evaluate its success before the change in
government.
“Mr. Cenaiko had indicated that sustainable funding was
going to be provided and then, of course, with the change
in government and in cabinet positions, it just fell by the
wayside,” she said.
This fact is denied by the office of the Solicitor General.
“I’m going to have to disagree with that statement,” said
Andy Wiler, a spokesperson for the solicitor’s general’s
office. “What we did, is we funded the initial pilot projects
both in Edmonton and in Calgary, and really the pilot
projects were set up to allow the cities to determine the
effectiveness of the program.”
Wiler said that specific programs are under the purview of
the cities and that those decisions are not a provincial matter.
“While we support enforcement efforts in Calgary through
municipal policing assistance grants and by returning fine
revenue, enforcement options within the cities is a city
responsibility. They have to decide whether it’s a program
they feel is worthwhile.”
He said that a similar program in Edmonton was maintained
after the end of the pilot phase.
“CSO worked very well in our community,” said Beltline
president Rob Taylor. “We really need it back.”
The new program is not dependent on dedicated provincial
funding.
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Lobbyist Act may cause paralysis
Transparency legislation could hinder rather than help democracy
Published in FFWD August 30, 2007 by Drew Anderson in News
The provincial Conservative government’s flagship accountability bill is causing concern among not-for-profit groups as the consultation process comes to a close and the new session of the legislature nears. Bill 1, or the Lobbyists Act, was introduced by Premier Ed Stelmach in March of this year, trumpeted as an important step towards greater transparency, but the not-for-profit sector is concerned it will limit access to decision-makers and paralyze many organizations.
“Public Interest Alberta (PIA)… has been calling on the provincial government to establish a very clear, transparent lobbyist registry with our concern about how so many decisions are influenced behind closed doors,” says Bill Moore-Kilgannon, executive director of PIA. “But the more we looked at the details, the more we got concerned about how, at the end of the day, these regulations that they’re putting in place may limit democracy and people’s access to decision makers, rather than enhance it.”
The act will establish a lobbyist registry and an index of government contact information, both of which will be free and easy to access for citizens, as well as a ban on lobbying and providing paid advice to the government on the same issue at the same time.
However, it is the scope and the broad definitions in the bill that are causing furrowed brows in the not-for-profit sector. These concerns are highlighted in a report prepared by the Legal Resource Centre and commissioned by the Muttart Foundation, which funds not-for-profit organizations and engages in policy research and awareness.
One of the central issues raised in the bill, as it’s currently written, is the amount of work and resources necessary to prevent violations. “A major problem in the Alberta act is the concept of associated persons,” said Bill Wyatt, executive director of the Muttart Foundation. “So if the Muttart Foundation wants to lobby the provincial government on something related to charities, I would arguably have to go to all of my directors and all of my staff members and say, ‘You have to tell me what you’re doing and what your spouses are doing and what any other organization you’re involved with is doing.’”
If any of those people are giving paid advice to the government on the same issue, the foundation would be unable to engage the government. The definition of public office holder in the legislation is also very broad, encompassing bureaucrats and advisors. In some instances a public office holder, as defined in the act, could sit on the board of a not-for-profit, meaning internal conversations might contravene the new regulations and would have to be reported. Some executive directors could be put in a position where they are unable to communicate with their own staff on the operation of their organization. This transparency and reporting also raises the issue of privacy, within an organization and amongst its staff and members.
“Public Interest Alberta would be fine being very transparent with who we are and what we’re trying to do, but the question comes in whether or not there’s potential for abuse once the government has all that information,” says Moore-Kilgannon.
This may discourage some watchdog groups or those representing refugees from authoritarian countries from engaging with the government, according to the Muttart report.
“It creates an environment that is ever more complex. I think it’s unintentional that it could have the kind of implications that it might have,” says Katherine van Kooy, president and CEO of the Calgary Chamber of Voluntary Organizations.
Sandi Walker, a spokesperson for Alberta Justice, believes the rules governing compliance with the act will be clear once the bill is passed. “There will be educational materials that are put out for the public, so people will understand what their responsibilities are and whether or not the act will apply to them,” she says.
Another issue raised in the Muttart report is the ability of government officials to circumvent the act. If a lobbyist is approached by a government official for advice, the rules relating to conflict do not apply, thereby potentially furthering favouritism of one organization or company over another.
“We wanted to be able to continue to consult with our stakeholders, so it’s important that we have the ability to ask people who may be affected by government decisions, and who have experience and knowledge about an issue, their opinion on it,” says Walker.
This applies to all sectors, including the not-for-profit.
All of these issues hold the very real possibility of preventing some advocacy and charitable organizations from conducting their business. “For most organizations, they’ll become very concerned about jeopardizing their positions, so they’ll be very reluctant to engage in something for fear that it might contravene the rules,” says van Kooy. “It almost becomes a self-imposed chill.”
Fines for contravention of the act range from $50,000 for an initial offence, and up to $200,000 for any offence after that. The bill has already passed second reading in the legislature and is now with the standing committee on government services, which will report back to the government in November. The Muttart report, signed by 81 different organizations to date, will be forwarded to the committee. “I think it’s incredibly important that people take a look at the implications of this and get ready to speak out on it as the regulations get put into place,” says Moore-Kilgannon.
Published in FFWD August 30, 2007 by Drew Anderson in News
The provincial Conservative government’s flagship accountability bill is causing concern among not-for-profit groups as the consultation process comes to a close and the new session of the legislature nears. Bill 1, or the Lobbyists Act, was introduced by Premier Ed Stelmach in March of this year, trumpeted as an important step towards greater transparency, but the not-for-profit sector is concerned it will limit access to decision-makers and paralyze many organizations.
“Public Interest Alberta (PIA)… has been calling on the provincial government to establish a very clear, transparent lobbyist registry with our concern about how so many decisions are influenced behind closed doors,” says Bill Moore-Kilgannon, executive director of PIA. “But the more we looked at the details, the more we got concerned about how, at the end of the day, these regulations that they’re putting in place may limit democracy and people’s access to decision makers, rather than enhance it.”
The act will establish a lobbyist registry and an index of government contact information, both of which will be free and easy to access for citizens, as well as a ban on lobbying and providing paid advice to the government on the same issue at the same time.
However, it is the scope and the broad definitions in the bill that are causing furrowed brows in the not-for-profit sector. These concerns are highlighted in a report prepared by the Legal Resource Centre and commissioned by the Muttart Foundation, which funds not-for-profit organizations and engages in policy research and awareness.
One of the central issues raised in the bill, as it’s currently written, is the amount of work and resources necessary to prevent violations. “A major problem in the Alberta act is the concept of associated persons,” said Bill Wyatt, executive director of the Muttart Foundation. “So if the Muttart Foundation wants to lobby the provincial government on something related to charities, I would arguably have to go to all of my directors and all of my staff members and say, ‘You have to tell me what you’re doing and what your spouses are doing and what any other organization you’re involved with is doing.’”
If any of those people are giving paid advice to the government on the same issue, the foundation would be unable to engage the government. The definition of public office holder in the legislation is also very broad, encompassing bureaucrats and advisors. In some instances a public office holder, as defined in the act, could sit on the board of a not-for-profit, meaning internal conversations might contravene the new regulations and would have to be reported. Some executive directors could be put in a position where they are unable to communicate with their own staff on the operation of their organization. This transparency and reporting also raises the issue of privacy, within an organization and amongst its staff and members.
“Public Interest Alberta would be fine being very transparent with who we are and what we’re trying to do, but the question comes in whether or not there’s potential for abuse once the government has all that information,” says Moore-Kilgannon.
This may discourage some watchdog groups or those representing refugees from authoritarian countries from engaging with the government, according to the Muttart report.
“It creates an environment that is ever more complex. I think it’s unintentional that it could have the kind of implications that it might have,” says Katherine van Kooy, president and CEO of the Calgary Chamber of Voluntary Organizations.
Sandi Walker, a spokesperson for Alberta Justice, believes the rules governing compliance with the act will be clear once the bill is passed. “There will be educational materials that are put out for the public, so people will understand what their responsibilities are and whether or not the act will apply to them,” she says.
Another issue raised in the Muttart report is the ability of government officials to circumvent the act. If a lobbyist is approached by a government official for advice, the rules relating to conflict do not apply, thereby potentially furthering favouritism of one organization or company over another.
“We wanted to be able to continue to consult with our stakeholders, so it’s important that we have the ability to ask people who may be affected by government decisions, and who have experience and knowledge about an issue, their opinion on it,” says Walker.
This applies to all sectors, including the not-for-profit.
All of these issues hold the very real possibility of preventing some advocacy and charitable organizations from conducting their business. “For most organizations, they’ll become very concerned about jeopardizing their positions, so they’ll be very reluctant to engage in something for fear that it might contravene the rules,” says van Kooy. “It almost becomes a self-imposed chill.”
Fines for contravention of the act range from $50,000 for an initial offence, and up to $200,000 for any offence after that. The bill has already passed second reading in the legislature and is now with the standing committee on government services, which will report back to the government in November. The Muttart report, signed by 81 different organizations to date, will be forwarded to the committee. “I think it’s incredibly important that people take a look at the implications of this and get ready to speak out on it as the regulations get put into place,” says Moore-Kilgannon.
Skinning a Kat
Kat Von D brings tattoos to the TV screen
Published in FFWD September 6, 2007 by Drew Anderson in Visual Arts
The ever-popular tattoo star Kat Von D
She’s 20 minutes late. Kat Von D, the hung-over diva of television tattoo looks to be a no-show. Back Alley and Snatch (no joke) have apparently slowed her down from the night before.
Then, at the end of the Roundup Centre hallway, the gruff voice and undoubtedly attractive figure of Von D appears, the star of LA Ink and the proprietor of High Voltage Tattoos in L.A.
At this point, the temptation is to be snarky, to mock the prima donna that has taken tattoos to the television and lives a rock ’n’ roll lifestyle under the glare of The Learning Channel and its millions of viewers. There are a few problems though: she’s really nice, down-to-earth, is comfortable to speak with and has paid her dues — and the same is true of her co-star and fellow artist, Corey Miller. Oh, and they can ink skin with the best of them.
Von D, covered from legs to neck in tattoos, alternately lays and sits on the couch, showing off her canvass of skin, while Miller, the only man on the show and in the shop, sits stoically to one side.
One common misconception about the shop and its matron is that it is a television set of sorts, owned somehow by TLC. “She did all of that shit on her own. She got the shop up and running literally in the time it took me a year to do. It’s amazing how much shit she got done,” says Miller.
“Before I even signed my contract with TLC for LA Ink I was already in the process of building the shop,” adds Von D. “It’s a real tattoo shop, I work there every day.”
Both Miller and Von D have been around the tattoo scene for many years, starting in the industry in their early teens, back when tattoos were not something showing up on family TV screens. “It was crazy, it was in the ghetto, San Bernadino, it was a really bad part of town,” says Von D of her first apprenticeship at the age of 16.
“I think she’s really lucky to come into the old timers that she had. A lot of people don’t realize, and not that it should be there, but a lot of people don’t realize how fucked up it was. Even 20 years ago, I had the same experience with the dirty, shady shit. I’m so glad we’re out of that, but it’s such a good thing to have a taste of,” says Miller.
So what of the new image of tattoos, and its dissemination on shows like theirs? “It’s just like music. Remember Nirvana? Everyone wanted to keep it to the little junkie kids under the bridge, but once you put it out to America, everybody loved it,” says Miller. “Me, myself, and this is my opinion, I’m a tattooist, but I don’t fucking own it.”
The filming for the first season of LA Ink has just wrapped up, but the two artists have to wait with the rest of us to see how it actually turns out. “We don’t get approvals, we get to see it when you guys see it,” says Von D. “There’s been a little drama between the production and the cast, but I’m proud of all the tattoos we’ve been busting out.”
Published in FFWD September 6, 2007 by Drew Anderson in Visual Arts
The ever-popular tattoo star Kat Von D
She’s 20 minutes late. Kat Von D, the hung-over diva of television tattoo looks to be a no-show. Back Alley and Snatch (no joke) have apparently slowed her down from the night before.
Then, at the end of the Roundup Centre hallway, the gruff voice and undoubtedly attractive figure of Von D appears, the star of LA Ink and the proprietor of High Voltage Tattoos in L.A.
At this point, the temptation is to be snarky, to mock the prima donna that has taken tattoos to the television and lives a rock ’n’ roll lifestyle under the glare of The Learning Channel and its millions of viewers. There are a few problems though: she’s really nice, down-to-earth, is comfortable to speak with and has paid her dues — and the same is true of her co-star and fellow artist, Corey Miller. Oh, and they can ink skin with the best of them.
Von D, covered from legs to neck in tattoos, alternately lays and sits on the couch, showing off her canvass of skin, while Miller, the only man on the show and in the shop, sits stoically to one side.
One common misconception about the shop and its matron is that it is a television set of sorts, owned somehow by TLC. “She did all of that shit on her own. She got the shop up and running literally in the time it took me a year to do. It’s amazing how much shit she got done,” says Miller.
“Before I even signed my contract with TLC for LA Ink I was already in the process of building the shop,” adds Von D. “It’s a real tattoo shop, I work there every day.”
Both Miller and Von D have been around the tattoo scene for many years, starting in the industry in their early teens, back when tattoos were not something showing up on family TV screens. “It was crazy, it was in the ghetto, San Bernadino, it was a really bad part of town,” says Von D of her first apprenticeship at the age of 16.
“I think she’s really lucky to come into the old timers that she had. A lot of people don’t realize, and not that it should be there, but a lot of people don’t realize how fucked up it was. Even 20 years ago, I had the same experience with the dirty, shady shit. I’m so glad we’re out of that, but it’s such a good thing to have a taste of,” says Miller.
So what of the new image of tattoos, and its dissemination on shows like theirs? “It’s just like music. Remember Nirvana? Everyone wanted to keep it to the little junkie kids under the bridge, but once you put it out to America, everybody loved it,” says Miller. “Me, myself, and this is my opinion, I’m a tattooist, but I don’t fucking own it.”
The filming for the first season of LA Ink has just wrapped up, but the two artists have to wait with the rest of us to see how it actually turns out. “We don’t get approvals, we get to see it when you guys see it,” says Von D. “There’s been a little drama between the production and the cast, but I’m proud of all the tattoos we’ve been busting out.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)