If A Bill Falls In The Empty B.C. Legislature....

....Will Anybody Hear?

Debate?
WeDon'tNeedNoStinkin'DebtateVille

Actually, it's 23 bills that may fall on deaf and/or non-existent hears before the big cars race at Indianapolis at the end of the month.

David Schreck, not Shrek, has the story:

Until (Premier Gordon) Campbell came to power in 2001, the rules that governed the BC Legislature saw the government call the session to order and the Opposition adjourn it. In other words, debate would continue for as long as the {snip}
(Mr.) Campbell changed the rules and implemented a fixed legislative calendar....

{snip}

A major feature of the fixed legislative calendar, is that according to the amended rules of the Legislature all designated government business must pass by the pre-set date for adjournment in late May (or be voted on, which is the same thing, with a majority government). If the government and the opposition can't agree on how that will happen, the government introduces closure (time-allocation) to limit debate and force budgets and legislation through the Legislature with little or no debate.

{snip}
The (current) pending legislation (10 of the 23 Bills were just introduced last week) includes substantial changes in how British Columbians live. The carbon tax, the cap and trade system for carbon emissions, limits on third party advertising before and during election campaigns, and a change to health legislation that puts a definition of "sustainability" on the same grounds as the concepts of universality, accessibility and comprehensiveness are but a few of the fundamental changes that the Campbell government appears willing to ram through without much debate by May 29th.

But, of course.

After all, why would we, the people of British Columbia, want to have our representatives discuss/debate a new tax system that some have suggested is about as revenue neutral, at least in terms of who will actually be the recipient of that neutrality, as a Howe Street-inspired ponzi scheme on steroids.

And as for the universality of our health care?

Well, why should we worry our pretty little heads about a thing like that?

Especially given that Mr. Campbell recently added that fine, sturdy word called 'sustainability' to the health care mix.

And if it soon takes something like, say, a few extra thousand dollars a year to see a doctor, wouldn't that be both universal and sustainable?

Sheesh.

_____
Looks like Mike Smyth and the Times Colonist also have some concerns with legislatively-mandated debate-o-cide too.
And whadd'ya know, now that the privateers have conquered Mr. Campbell's British Columbia (after all, we can't call it 'our' British Columbia given that we have no say in how decisions are made, how things are run, how we are governed our how our laws are enforced), it looks like they, just like the insatiable mountain pine beetle, are getting set to march eastward across the Rockies.

.