Yet Another Reason to Move to Canada

British Columbia's Liberal Party won't be holding a legislative session this fall, and The Globe and Mail's writeup reads like wish fulfillment for small-government types:

Saying the success of their government isn't dependent on passing laws or regulations, the B.C. Liberals have decided not to hold a fall session this year.

The cancellation has angered NDP Leader Carole James who says the government has no reason to be complacent and there are many issues that need debate...

"I haven't heard anybody thus far who has said I'm offended you decided not to impose more laws," [House Leader Mike] De Jong said. "We're not simply going to reconvene the legislature because the NDP opposition can't think of anything to do."

HT: To The People.

Comments

Gimme Back My Dog | September 11, 2006, 3:47pm | #

Reminds me of a classic Onion piece. No longer in the archives, but it is here

John | September 11, 2006, 4:07pm | #

Another reason to move to Western Canada. There is a big difference between a place like B.C. and the nanny state hell that is Toronto or Ottawa. I have often thought that if you took the U.S. west of the Mississippi, sans California, Oregon and Washington and put it with the Canadian provinces west of Saskatchewan, you would have a pretty decent country.

Deus ex Machina | September 11, 2006, 4:21pm | #

Unfortunately, the cancelling of the Fall session has more to do with avoiding questions over the ballooning costs of various 2010 Olympic infrastructure projects than any small government principles.

Paul | September 11, 2006, 4:25pm | #

"Unfortunately, the legislature in B.C. has not been as relevant as it could be and it should be in the lives of British Columbians," said Mr. Mitchell, a vice-president at the University of Ottawa.

Wow, no 'keep your laws of my body' sentiments from the veep at the U of O.

Paul | September 11, 2006, 4:51pm | #

Deux ex Machina:

Yes, but a libertarian can dream, can't he?

val | September 11, 2006, 4:53pm | #

Did you suggest that people should move to Canada to avoid nanny/big government!? Har har, good one, I'll go pack my bags.

val | September 11, 2006, 4:53pm | #

Did you just suggest that people should move to Canada to avoid nanny/big government!? Har har, good one, I'll go pack my bags.

chris | September 11, 2006, 5:32pm | #

So they get a leg. session off - do they still get paid? I'd like a 8 month long paid vacation, too.

Rick Barton | September 11, 2006, 5:54pm | #

Good for BC cuz: "No man's life, liberty or property are safe while the legislature is in session."

downstater | September 11, 2006, 5:56pm | #

"There is a big difference between a place like B.C. and the nanny state hell that is Toronto or Ottawa"
"...if you took the U.S. west of the Mississippi, sans California, Oregon and Washington..."

funny, considering that vancouver is often held in the same class in the urban planning world as portland.

i make no judgment on that similarity, as i see pros and cons to such an environment.

grylliade | September 11, 2006, 8:54pm | #

What is the best country for dissatisfied libertarians to move to?

New Zealand, I think. It's not perfect, but it's at least as free as the US, and it's pretty. Plus, they speak English (of a sort), and as far as I can tell are more liberal on gun ownership than Australia. Auckland just looks like a cool place to live, and . . . well, it's just so gosh-darn pretty! If things get really bad in the US, that's my ideal bolt-hole, but Canada will do in a pinch.

Akira MacKenzie | September 12, 2006, 6:16am | #

John brings up a good point. What is the best country for dissatisfied libertarians to move to?

This is the point where some snide left-leaning troll (e.g. Dan T, Jersey McJones, etc) swoops down and tells us that Third World hellholes (with their guns and lack of organized government beyond regional warlords) like Somalia are prime examples of "libertarian societies."