Out in Left-Centre Field

Alright.

I am officially glad that my brief absence thanks to the demands of an online course known only as PDEng (just search Google and behold the ranting carnage) hasn't coincided with any chaos back in the Model Parliament. To anyone inconvenienced by my temporary unavailability, I apologize -- but, as Ah-nold once said, "I'm back."

So, yeah. The Model Parliament. I'm kinda relieved that the constituency registration has gotten a little calmer lately -- it was getting pretty irritating to update three different files for new registrants, update everything in the thread, and post it only to find that one or two new people had signed up in the short time it had taken me to do the above, necessitating doing it all over again. However, I'm kinda proud of a map I found/made that helps people see the 177 ridings instead of just reading their names or an abstract list of their components.

That being said, I'm pretty disappointed that most of the people who signed up can't even drag their behinds in there to remind everyone else that they're alive at least once a week. That goes for all parties, including (in particular) my own colleagues. Yes, there are a few key people who are regularly active -- Jeremy, Coady, Arya, J.D., Karine, Max, Eoin, Nate, Sheldon, Peter, Giancarlo, Nathan, Matt, Andrew and Jack come to mind -- but that's not even a quarter of the 65-or-so CYA MPs we supposedly have.

People, signing up for the Model Parliament in the first place is an agreement that you have committed to participate on a regular basis. I don't care if you write bills, or participate in committees, or whatnot; even just being there to vote is at least a marginal return on that commitment. But don't simply sign up and then walk away; how is that any better than an empty seat? I'm pleased as punch that (for example) the ANDY was able to sign up enough people to form the first government, but I'd much rather swap that for 100% participation, like the LAN or Greens have. Even if the LANs have only two people period, I have to tip my cap to them for being exemplary in their commitment to getting things done.

Anyways.

I'll be reintroducing Bill C-3 (the proposed Elections Act; kinda key, no?) as soon as I can. First I'd like to close a pretty gaping loophole I seem to have left regarding in-session byelections. Really, we shouldn't have this festival of empty riding picking-and-choosing for months on end. What I'm contemplating is making byelections in a given riding be the only way to fill a vacancy, and making it mandatory that at least two candidates (from separate parties, or one party and an independent) must declare themselves for a given riding for it to be called. Yes, people just can't walk in and claim ridings, there would have to be a contest; at the same time, this prevents the sort of wild large-scale fluctuations we've seen so far. And yes, there could be complaints that parties could stonewall one another by keeping candidates out of potentially active ridings -- but on the other hand, those sandbagging parties would be keeping their people out as well.

As for C-4, the Reservists Act, I really have no problem with it. I just think, somehow, an Explosives Act would have been so much more appropriate, don't you agree?

Also, stay tuned for an in-depth series on the 177 riding system I'll be posting right here in the near future. Whenever the conference finally goes down, I intend to run a session or booth or something to educate people on it, since a lot of people are still declaring for ridings that aren't separate under the CYA. Should be fun!