But that wasn’t the most annoying thing about him. He was indisputably one of the best of us. Nothing you did or created ever looked remotely impressive next to Andrew’s projects. When Andrew decided to shoot a pseudo-demonic  birth scene in a candle-lit church using a tracking shot, there was no going half-way. He somehow convinced a downtown Anglican church (even after they had seen the script) to let him move in, light the candles and build the track. When he decided that the perfect music to underscore this scene was a Led Zeppelin song, he didn’t settle for one of the widely-available rip-offs, nor did he do what many students would probably do and just use the song and hope he didn’t get caught. He went and secured the damned rights to the damned Let Zeppelin song. (All of this for a scene that, to my memory, was just a brief flash-back in an otherwise straightforward video.)

That wasn’t the most annoying thing about him either. If you were lucky enough to get to work on one of his projects, he’d run you ragged. While creating what we believe to be North America’s first TV pilot written and directed in American Sign Language by deaf (some identified as Deaf) actors and improvisers, we worked 18-hour-days, mostly outside, in the winter, for weeks. At 1 a.m. when you can no longer feel your hands, are running on 4 hours sleep, know you’re starting again at 6 a.m. and still have to strike the set and load the truck, it’s easy to decide that “that last take was good enough.” But Andrew always wanted to get one more shot. He knew it could be better. He knew what “right” looked like, and he wasn’t willing to compromise.

That was the most annoying thing about him. Andrew’s success, from what I could tell, was the result of two things: the exceptional amount of effort that he put in, and the high standards he refused to let go. Even while still at school, those values extended beyond school projects into activism. At the end of our program Andrew moved back to B.C. and became a full-time environmental campaigner, often working for free on initiatives he either created himself or strongly believed in.

Most of us don’t operate with such a strong unwillingness to compromise, especially when it comes to our own employment. In their response to Andrew’s open letter, ForestEthics doesn’t give any indication that the very serious accusations he makes aren’t accurate. In fact, by saying that Andrew was fired for “[violating] the confidence of the organization,” they suggest that what he revealed is accurate information the organization hoped to keep secret in the interest of not biting the hands that feed them. And as Andrew himself points out in a blog post this morning, denials coming from the PMO and Tides Canada (an organization that funds ForestEthics) aren’t as absolute as they could be either.

I haven’t yet spoken with Andrew about what happened. I don’t know anything more than what’s been publicly reported. What I do know from my years working closely with him is that Andrew is not motivated by fame, sets high standards for himself and those around him and strongly values honesty. I know that when he’s a pain in the ass, it’s usually because he’s doing what needs to be done when no one else will do it. And when he decides what’s right, he doesn’t settle for anything less.

Regardless of what you think of the Northern Gateway Pipeline, if you believe Canadians deserve to know the truth about what kinds of chill tactics are being used against NGOs and ordinary citizens, please join this cause.

It would be difficult for a reasonable, disinterested person to conclude Craig Scott is anything other than very qualified to be a Member of Parliament. The human rights lawyer has a bio that hits all the right notes: he’s worked for human rights around the world and here at home, recently turned his focus to environmental justice and is active around housing and poverty.

Additionally, at the Toronto Danforth NDP nomination meeting Monday night, he gave the strongest speech, both in content and delivery. He’s able to comfortably speak to a wide range of federal issues without sounding like he’s just reciting a list of talking points. Verbal cues, like a nod to “evidence-based policy,” hint that there is hopefully more depth to his thinking than can ever be fully apparent in a short campaign speech. And he managed not only to move the room of party faithfuls, but also cause this often-NDP-critic to repeatedly nod his head.

In addition to those qualities, Scott brought with him the largest selection of influential NDP endorsements. Backing from impressive individuals like environmentalist Rick Smith, Rev. Brent Hawks and Maher Arar was paired with the green light from his party’s political establishment: current MPP Peter Tabuns, Toronto and York Region Labour Council President John Cartwright and past President of the Ontario NDP and Toronto Danforth Riding Association Janet Solberg.

I do not suggest that any of these endorsements were anything less than honestly earned. They are, however, somewhere between difficult and impossible for another candidate to overcome. In that way—barring a shocking underdog victory—a small group of well-connected people chose Craig Scott as the next MP for Toronto Danforth before the NDP or any other party had even held a nomination meeting.

There are three main ways in which I see these endorsements exerting an influence on the voting membership. Most obviously and legitimately, the approval of respected like-minded individuals makes a candidate more attractive. Party members are very similar to voters in a public election in that they are busy individuals who don’t have a lot of time to fully vet each candidate. In both party and public elections, quality endorsements serve as a helpful shortcut for voters. That doesn’t mean voters will vote strictly based on endorsements, but they’re likely to take well-endorsed candidates more seriously and begin their decision process with a bias towards them.

Further, some endorsements come with critical campaign resources like lists, volunteers and money. Key party and labour individuals have increased access to these resources, which can be deployed to help win both the nomination and the public election. Some savvy voting members may also see the writing on the wall and conclude that nominating a candidate with these kinds of connections is the best way to ensure future electoral success, though that’s more difficult to demonstrate.

Finally, and of greatest concern, is the dissuading effect enough of these endorsements can have on other prospective candidates. Within political parties, prospective candidates who come up against the chosen individual of the party establishment often feel pressure not to run at all, either directly or indirectly. Sometimes those candidates declare themselves and then withdraw (in the federal riding of Toronto Centre, Liberal Rob Oliphant dropped out to support Bob Rae, and, provincially, former George Smitherman staffer Todd Ross dropped out to support Glen Murray when Murray received Smitherman’s nod) and sometimes we never really learn what might have been (many believe that former Toronto budget chief and Liberal party member Shelley Carroll would have run for mayor if the Liberal establishment hadn’t anointed Smitherman instead).

In other words, we know Scott was the best and most qualified candidate on offer to NDP members Monday night, and may end up being the best candidate the residents of Toronto Danforth get to select from when a by-election is called. We don’t and can’t know if he was the best of all the candidates who may have considered a run. And, after all the other parties have gone through a similar process to pick their candidates, voters will get to choose from the candidates the parties have already chosen, never knowing who else might have been on offer.

Reasonable people will disagree on if this really represents a problem and, if it does, how best to fix it. But we should all at least have a better understanding of the process that goes into becoming an MP, especially if we hope to improve our democracy through voting or other reforms. It’s not as straight forward as simply letting the voters decide.

Jane Taber reports over on globeandmail.com that you want MPs like yourself to be banned from Twitter “to save politicians from looking like idiots.”

“Here’s a better idea,” wrote Jeff Jedras. “Stop being idiots.”

We could probably just leave it there, Charlie, but I want this point to be very clear. Our MPs are letting us down disastrously. There are many good individuals who sit in the House of Commons and you may well be one of them, but as a group you are delivering concentrated packages of FAIL on a daily basis. Our MPs do act childish, they do play games, and they have created a complete vacuum of leadership at a time when we need it the most. The solution is not to hide that disgrace, the solution is to change it.

I’m surprised that anyone who believes in transparent and accountable democracy could conclude that a tool that  “exposes” a problem with how Parliament (doesn’t) work should be removed from the equation. On the contrary, anything that exposes the pathetic sideshow that is the current Parliament should be amplified in the hopes that it will snap us out of our collective slumber and elect a group of people who will actually work together for the good of the country.

And Charlie, those of us who follow the tweets of public figures? We’re not “imaginary friends,” as you called us. We’re people, voters, citizens. Don’t call us names.

As for your claim that banning Twitter would somehow force MPs to treat each other like humans because they wouldn’t have their noses in their mobile devices all the time, I’ll grant you that sounds like good meeting etiquette. But when I read that you’re someone who “freely admits that he couldn’t do his job without his BlackBerry – he uses it at committee to check facts with his staff and to Google other points of discussion,” it seems like you’re specifically targeting tools that allow politicians to communicate with the public while giving a pass to other equally anti-social BlackBerry habits.

There, rant over. Let’s get back to work. It’s getting hot in here.

Best,

Chris

The main show

Overall I’m disappointed by the results, so I’ll begin by finding something positive to cling to. The reelection of Gordon Campbell’s Liberal government can at least be seen in part as a vindication of their carbon tax policy. The B.C. carbon tax is far from perfect in implementation, but it is North America’s first and it has now been ratified (somewhat) by the electorate. That’s encouraging for other politicians who seek to do the right thing even when it may not seem popular at first.

The result is also, in part, a repudiation of the NDP’s attempt to turn the carbon tax into a negative wedge. Going against the advice of every major environmentalist and economist in favour of attempting to grab a few extra votes was a mistake. The federal NDP, who have also too often flirted with populism at the expense of principal, would be wise to take note.

The side show

The Green Party of B.C. did poorly last night. 8.1% and no close ridings to speak of is the worst result since 1996 and continues a trend of negative momentum that began after 2001. This result isn’t surprising, IMO, given the party’s messaging. In a final pitch to voters printed on the front page of yesterday’s Metro newspaper (my employer) in Vancouver, Green leader Jane Sterk asked for support “so our grandchildren’s grandchildren also have the opportunity to live a good life.” This argument is both politically foolish (voters do not and will not make decisions based on vague predictions of what will happen long after they’re dead) and unrealistically optimistic (we are already experiencing the results of poor economic and environmental policy, and will continue to witness the worst fallout in this generation and the next).

The no show

The biggest disappointment of the night was the defeat of the Single Transferable Vote proposal. It’s hard to know what to say about that. After MMP was defeated in Ontario I wrote that I wouldn’t comment until I stopped swearing and throwing things. I never did. I didn’t want to sound like a sore loser. Ultimately, I’ve come to realize there’s no escaping the truth: I did lose, and I am sore.

The citizens and experts who studied STV most closely supported it. The campaign that opposed STV had no grassroots support by its own admission¹, and instead depended on government funding to spread misinformation and spin. In a recent election to the south, an inspiring political figure successfully argued that voters should choose hope over fear, change over more of the same. B.C. didn’t get the memo. They chose the opposite.

The result is extremely disappointing for anyone concerned about the health of democracy in Canada. This morning I have little interest in being gracious. It was the wrong decision, and we will pay for it.

Thanks, though

The one thing that makes me wish I could be more positive this morning are the many good people who volunteered for causes they believed in. To the volunteers of the STV campaign and the Green campaign, thank you. Despite the disappointment, things are still better due to your efforts.

1: No-STV President Bill Tieleman wrote: “The Yes STV side has a great many volunteers organized for the past several years through Fair Voting BC. No STV has approached the referendum completely differently and is putting almost all resources into television, radio and print advertising… We do not have lawn signs and you will not see any this campaign…”

If you care about fair voting and democracy anywhere in Canada, I urge you to support STV through a donation or by volunteering. The vote is winnable, but it will be very close since the frightened B.C. government has required an undemocratic 60% threshold for the proposal to pass. (Last time B.C. voted on this proposal it received 58% approval.) If the referendum fails, it will be the last one Canada gets for awhile.

Robert Silver at globeandmail.com: “If this rumour is true then it is the first move Jack Layton has made since he became leader of the NDP that is, without qualification, strategically smart.” (yes!)

Peter Zimonjic at canoe.ca: “I called up Karl Belanger, Layton’s press secretary, and asked him if there was any truth to it He gave me a flat out: NO.” (damn!)

Aaaaaaaannnnnd scene. That was fun, eh? Now, as you were everyone. As you were.

Get comfy before pushing play. It’s a little over 50 minutes long.

And how did we get here? Well it’s our own fault apparently. Because if you talk to any political strategist they will tell you attack ads work. Sure Canadians don’t like them, sure it means that smart people won’t go into politics, but it doesn’t matter to them because it works.

Well you know what? Who cares? If there’s a cat stuck up in a tree and you want to get the cat down, shooting the cat works too, but that doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do.

Ok, so what now?

The only upside here is that unlike fixing the economy, getting rid of attack ads is simple. It won’t even take billions of dollars. All it takes is three men, three men who run three political parties, to agree and say fine, from here on in no more attacks. The buck stops with them. Because ultimately guys, we’re all drinking from the same well.

Great idea. Wonder if it’ll work.

For the record (immature reactive cheap-shots notwithstanding), I like and respect John Tory, and my heart goes out to him today. I disagree with him on many issues, but he comes by his positions thoughtfully and defends them with honesty and integrity. Would that we could say that about more politicians.

In the end, it turns out Tory was a bad politician—not because of who he is, but because of who we expect politicians to be.

That’s not to excuse or exonerate him completely. I would not have made many of the same decisions he did, and ultimately only he can be held accountable for his own performance. I just think it’s worth reflecting on what kind of political leadership we want in this country, and comparing that to the types of people we tend to vote for. Seems to me there’s a disconnect.

And finally, still for the record, the great religious schools debate of October 2007 (sometimes referred to as the Ontario General Election) should live on as Dalton McGuinty’s great shame, not Tory’s. At least Tory was taking a principled position on equality (it was the wrong principled position on equality mind you, but still). The Liberals and the NDP, on the other hand, formally adopted the position that they favour and support religious discrimination, and played on xenophobic sentiment towards people of faith in order to do it. As Andrew Coyne puts it:

History will record that the premier of Ontario, in the year 2007, could begin a televised debate with a veiled — you should pardon the expression — warning that the Conservatives’ religious schools proposal would mean “strife in the streets,” of the kind witnessed in “Paris and London.” Hmmm. Paris… London… What sort of strife could he have meant? Could he have had in mind… the Muslim kind? The beauty of it was, the Liberals never had to say it out loud: “eek, a Muslim!” The premier could appear to be singing the same old hymns to tolerance and pluralism, even as he was exploiting much darker sentiments.

Yes, let’s hope historians—and voters—are paying that much attention.

UPDATE (Saturday, 8:10 am): Today’s Globe editorial:

Both his personal defeat, and the party defeat, can be interpreted as a setback caused in some measure by a principled stand taken by Mr. Tory. He thought it proper to run in a constituency in which he had personal ties, and he thought that Roman Catholics should not be the only faith group to receive publicly funded religious schooling – that addressing this historic inequity was the correct thing to do. But as political decisions both were failures, and Mr. Tory was aspiring to be premier, not an ethicist.

…His critics will now have an opportunity to find a better leader, although they will be hard-pressed to find a better person.

Question 1: Write down an issue that’s important to you.

Question 2: What do you want to see done about the issue identified in #1?

Question 3: What organization or group do you see doing #2 about #1?

He then instructs the students to take the following action. If #3 exists, get involved with them. If #3 doesn’t exist, create it.

Great advice for us all.