Angry in the Great White North

You might be familiar with the name Camille Labchuk.  She was the spokesperson for the Green Party, but after the election, moved on to other opportunities.

She was also in the running to win this season's Canada's Next Great Prime Minister.

The is interesting in of itself, because on the face of it, Camille Labchuk was not eligible because she had run for a seat in parliament.  From the show's rules:

4.3. It is a condition of entry and participation in the Competition that the Competitor has not been elected to any political office, either federally, provincially or municipally (including, without limitation, as a school board trustee), nor shall the person have run for a nomination for any political party for Parliament or the legislature in any province.

Now Camille brought this to the attention of the show's producers at the outset (the senior producer being the final arbiters of the interpretation and application of the rules).  Here is an email trail provided by Camille:

On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 9:47 AM, xxxxxxx xxxxxx <xxxxxxx.xxxxxx@cbc.ca> wrote:

Hi Camille,

You're good to go! as long as you are between the ages of 18-25 as of April 1, 2009.

Would you mind giving me a call at some point to day when you get the chance?

Thanks!

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: xxxxxxx xxxxxx <xxxxxxx.xxxxxx@cbc.ca>
Date: Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 8:15 PM
Subject: Re: CBC's Canada's Next Great PM
To: Camille Labchuk <clabchuk@greenparty.ca>

Hi Camille, that's a good question. As far as I know that shouldn't be a problem but let me check with my senior producer tomorrow morning and I'll let you know.

Thanks for your interest!

>>> Camille Labchuk <clabchuk@greenparty.ca> 11/6/2008 8:02 PM >>>

Hello xxxxxxx,

I may be interested in applying for Canada's Next Great PM, but have a question. I have previously run as a federal candidate and am wondering if this disqualifies me. I know it was an issu two years ago but perhaps the rules have changed.

Thank you,
Camille

I've removed the contact information for the representative for the CBC, but I can assure you the email address is legitimate.

Clearly, though, it appears that the interpretation and/or the application of the rules have changed.

Camille the invested many, many hours in her online run for the prize, when she was told her admission was a mistake.  This is extracted from an email discussion I've had with her:

Yesterday, CBC told me I am disqualified because I ran for Parliament in 2006. I was shocked, because I had raised this as an issue when they recruited me (they asked me to run in November) and I have it in writing that I am "good to go" and that having been a past federal candidate did not render me ineligible.

They informed me of my disqualification via telephone so unfortunately there's no hard copy. We had several phone conversations this week where they indicated my past candidacy was the sole reason for disqualification and they had made an unfortunate mistake by allowing me to enter.

People make mistakes, and if Camille was admitted in error, and the error gave her an advantage over the other contestants, then maybe the CBC was right to correct that mistake. 

I mean, if being a former candidate makes you a shoo-in to win, I'd be upset if I was one of the other contestants.

Well, not if I was Emily Berrigan.  Emily is still listed on the candidate page.  In her bio, the CBC provides a link to this article about Emily:

Young and passionate about politics, Emily Berrigan and Liam Mooney are among four locals vying for the title of Canada's Next Great Prime Minister.

Berrigan, 21, who the community got to know fairly well as the Peterborough riding's Green party candidate in the last federal election, said a couple of her top issues are poverty, living wages for farmers and reforming the Canadian electoral system to move towards proportional representation.

Hold on for a moment.  Emily Berrigan was a former candidate too?  And for the Green Party like Camille?  And she's still a contestant?  And the CBC has no reason not to know about it?

Remember what I said about what makes a good game?  Easy to play but hard to play well.  Easy to play is a function of the rules - they ought to be easy enough to understand, and their application ought to be consistent and universal.

How can anyone play the game behind Canada's Next Great Prime Minister when Rule 4.3 is applied in what seems to be a capricious manner?

Is there a different reason to get rid of Camille?  Is Rule 4.3 being dusted off just for her as a cover for a different reason not handled by the rules?

Or is it just that the rules behind the game are such that the game itself is just not that good, as per my definition?

Here's another rule:

1.4 Individuals are required to post a speech of 3 to 5 minutes on YouTube addressing the question: What would you do to make Canada a stronger country socially, economically and/or politically? If the video posted exceeds the maximum of 5 minutes, the applicant will be disqualified.

Seems pretty clear to me.  It's a good rule as written.  Easy to understand, but defines a challenge for the player to be efficient in making his or her case.

Emily's video comes in at 4:59.  Toufic Adlouni's runs for 5:03.  Mandy Gardner's clocks a full 6 minutes, as does Nazeel Qureshi's.

So why are these candidates still in the running, and Camille Labchuk is out?  If a simple and straightforward rule as "keep the video to 5 minutes or less" is tossed to the wayside (or worse, applied capriciously), then all the rules, including more complex ones involving a contestants prior political activities, are suspect.

Games are hard to play (or ought to be), and they are even harder to design.  I'd like to see the CBC succeed with this show.  Heck, I'm paying for it, whether I like it or not.  But when I see evidence that they can't handle the challenge of following their own rules for a game show of their own design, I wonder if all the contestants are being done a disservice, not just contestants like Camille Labchuk.

As for Camille, she acted on good faith that the rule was not being applied deliberately, and that she could invest the time and effort to present her vision for Canada.  The CBC switched gears on her, but only on her, and that's bad.  It's bad for the game, it's bad for Camille Labchuk, and it's bad for all of us.

I hope the CBC figures out a way to fix this.