The Coming CRASH
in Canada!

(This post was submitted by Professor Robin Mathews)

The Harper neoliberals clutch onto power by a strategy of election fraud, perversion of parliamentary practice, misuse of prorogation (the closing down of parliament), violations of the office of the Governor General, wholesale lying to the population and to members of the House of Commons, destruction of conventional government sources of public information, coercion of groups critical of repressive State tactics, secretly negotiated international agreements that suck away individual and national rights, increased use of police forces to suppress traditional freedoms, legislation to mask corporate rape of the environment, and the wholesale appropriation of the Mainstream Press and Media.

Despite - in fact because of - employing those and other forms of deceit and dishonesty, the Harper forces may be moving inevitably to the collapse of their flashy House of Cards ... or to the establishment of a permanent, anti-democratic, semi-fascist state. The rupture of the Harper pattern of deception will be brought about by the fundamental nature of its truculent, psychopathic ideology and, especially, the antiquated and destructive Economic Religion of the Harperites.

That religion is manifested most visibly by the Harper approach to corporate rule, to management of the economy, and especially to its omnipresent real estate policy – a House of Cards if there ever was one. Look at it.

But first – consider the Harper group’s use of the Mainstream Press and Media as a weapon of deceit. Only the other day (June 27, 2012) – attached to the news that the Postmedia near-monopoly on newspapers is selling its Toronto head office because of debt – a former editor weighed in on the state of newspapers in Canada.

He outlined a number of truths. The former editor lists the dirty negatives of media concentration, bad financial policy, failure to invest in news, stupid management, rigid corporate ignorance of how to run news gathering and presentation. Etcetera.

He may have missed what is perhaps the central fact. Intended suicide. That is the purposeful misuse of media to misinform the public … inevitably alienating readers. As a (very successful) entrepreneur said to me decades ago, the bottom line for investment capital is a six per cent return. He said that angrily as he was withdrawing, wounded, from an unconventional venture. When the 6% base level of profit is not present to keep an enterprise going, then something else has to be the motivation.

Look at the neo-liberal (what I choose to think of as the neo-fascist) National Post (a Postmedia holding). Over its whole lifetime I don’t think it has ever made a profit, not even six per cent. When at ten years old it hadn’t made profit in a single year, the neon lights were blazing, the trumpets sounding, the billboards aglow with its real purpose in life.

The National Post is not being run as a conventional corporate enterprise but as a propaganda instrument, an ideological brainwasher, a major political force for indoctrination of the Canadian public. It passes from hand to hand. Its owners often seem to be greedy fools (as the former editor suggests). But it is kept afloat by the corporate community in Canada, I allege, to falsify Canadian reality, to deceive Canadians, to have them sanction and endorse inhuman and destructive government and corporate policy.

What appears to be an “intended suicide” – running a corporation that does nothing but lose money – is, in fact, a simple, overall, reactionary corporate Canadian policy. It is a present expense paid now in order to win bigger rewards down the road. Corporations and organizations of corporations (think of John Manley and the Canadian Council of Chief Executives) spend a lot of money on the propaganda of sell-out, as do most of the Mainstream Press and Media. There is no immediate reward – as in Manley’s recent call for the end of “supply management” that benefits Canadian farmers and the overall Canadian economy.

But when the private corporations kill off another democratic institution in the country, they are closer to unregulated, unsupervised, unchecked corporate rule of the country.

Stephen Harper just won a place at the Trans Pacific Partnership table. It will demand that Canada end its supply management marketing structure. Of course, it was a totally unrelated event when John Manley, spokesperson for the sell-out corporations of Canada, just happened – at almost the same moment – to begin beating the drums for destruction of supply management in Canada. Harper government and the corporations working hand-in-hand? Of course they will deny doing so.

Canadians will learn later – if they don’t learn sooner – that policy of the corporations and policies of the Harper government are one and the same.

Canadians believe the last major gaffe of a Governor General was the willingness of Michaelle Jean (under severe pressure) to grant Stephen Harper prorogation (the closing down) of parliament when she should not have done so. That decision by Ms. Jean can never be forgiven.

But an equal violation of the Governor General’s office has happened with Canadians hardly noticing. Wanting to cover for the Brian Mulroney involvement in the Airbus (bribery) affair, Stephen Harper sought someone to make terms for the last Inquiry (2009) that would shield Mulroney (and Harper himself).

He chose a university president, David Johnston, who tied the hands of the judge examining the relation between Brian Mulroney and Karlheinz Schreiber, lobbyist. The judge, Justice Jeffrey Oliphant, was prevented from gaining any of the information considered by many as most key to the Mulroney/Schreiber relation. The ex-judge was only able to say that none of Brian Mulroney’s testimony was credible. Criminal charges almost certainly would have arisen from a fair and real Inquiry.

Shortly after that, the university president David Johnston was made Governor General of Canada from which position he can work openly for Stephen Harper policy, as he did covertly, I believe, before his “elevation”. One might believe that for betraying the trust of the Canadian people David Johnston was rewarded with the position of Governor General. So much for “the Queen’s representative in Canada”.

Repeatedly, the Harperites claim that it is not government’s place to interfere in the economy and the workings of society. What they mean is that they will not interfere to assure security, harmony, and well-being for Canadians. But they interfere every day, almost every hour, on behalf of private corporations and the wealthy inside and outside Canada who are engaged in profiteering from the general wealth of the country.

One of their most obvious interventions on behalf of the profiteers is and has been in the Real Estate market. Since at least 2007 indications have pointed to the need for careful handling of Real Estate transactions in Canada – the need for ceilings on loans, assured down payment sizes, limited amortization periods for all mortgages, and strict regulation of loans guaranteed by government. None of those things has happened. Only pretence after pretence. That is because the Harper government generally and finance minister Jim Flaherty in particular work for the banks.

As the National Post (June 22, 2012 FP3) comments: “the banks’ consumer lending business has been their main profit engine basically for the last three years….” And Jim Flaherty works for the banks, not for Canadians. The Harperites have permitted the debt-to-income ratio of Canadian households to reach 152% … and rising. That is the measure of how much of overall income is needed to pay off debts. It now takes the average Canadian household 152% of overall income to pay off debts, meaning it can’t pay them and is permanently in debt – and at great risk.

But the 152% figure is the average. That means there are many Canadians households without debt at all. We don’t know how many since the Harperites have slashed Statistics Canada’s fact-gathering powers. But we do know that there are a large number of Canadian households far above the 152% debt-to-income ratio. If there are many Canadian households without debt, there have to many with a 200% and 250% debt-to-income ratio.

Since the Harper government only intervenes in the economy to assist Canadian and foreign corporations to make profit here, it has set up ordinary Canadians-in-debt to be roasted when the housing market tumbles – as it appears to have begun to do. To assure huge bank profits and obscene top-banker pay-outs, the Harper group is happy to gore ordinary Canadians. If the present slump deepens, thousands of Canadian households will be desperate, will be unable to keep their heads above water, will lose their homes, their jobs, and will go bankrupt as the job market shrinks and construction slows or comes to a standstill.

All that has been visible and predictable since the U.S. and European housing crashes began years ago. But the Economic Religion of the Harperites is to serve corporations and punish ordinary Canadians, and so nothing of substance has been done to protect the whole economy. A crash will send the Harper government rushing to assist … the banks.

As the truth about the Harper Economic Religion becomes clear to Canadians - and the crash in the housing market should tell all - the crash of the Stephen Harper government should be guaranteed. The only good thing about the coming crash in Canada will be the end of the vicious, undemocratic, vengeful rule of Stephen Harper and his toadies. You read it first, here

Robin Mathews

Texan Words of Wisdom

Down here in my state we know that a corporation is not a person because Texas has not executed one yet.

Jim Hightower

Big Insurance
Wins Big!

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
Deliberating!

On the last day of the current session of the Supreme Court of the United States, the robed legal contortionists of the Court issued their long awaited ruling on what has become known as Obamacare. President Obama, in spite of the disappointment he has been to progressives everywhere, appeared to have his entire presidential legacy on the line, depending on how the institution that SELECTED George Bush the Lesser to be Preznit, decided on the attack on his landmark Affordable Care Act by twenty six states where Republican Governors and Legislatures rule the roost.

America the beautiful, supposedly the richest country on earth has yet to figure out how to have a health system that serves its people. The poor have no access to reasonable preventative care that every other civilized and industrialized country in Europe and Canada consider a basic responsibility of government that shouldn't be rationed out based on the ability to pay. The middle class, or what little is left of it is even more ill served as an accident or serious illness will likely lead to bankruptcy at the least or death at worst. Even those who are considered "insured," once in need of a doctor's assistance may have to pay thousands out of pocket (deductible), assuming the herd of lawyers working for their insurer are unable to find an excuse to terminate their coverage due to "pre-existing" conditions that theY never even knew existed. This is after years of paying $400 - $1,000 per month for a family making a median income. The wife of Mittens Romney's dressage horse has better health care than the average American and poor Mitt can even claim a $77,000 dollar tax deduction for the animal's care and feeding.

Even though all we will hear in the next days and week about the split decision by the increasingly discredited and conservative dominated activist court about who lost and who won, the truth is Americans who aren't in the one percent lost and Big Insurance, that eats up 40% of every health care dollar to pay their $10,000,000 salaried CEO's won.

Congress critters and Senators in America have platinum plated health care, paid for by the government taxpayers, yet the plutocracy that has spent billions to buy a government that works for them has managed to convince many Americans that for them to divert tax dollars away from bombing brown people anywhere in the world to support their own health care is socialism, and that is a BAD, BAD, word!

Though in the simplest horse race sense of the issue (the only way the American media portrays issues) this decision is seen to be a victory for Obama, and Romney really doesn't care, because he has promised to repeal the entire bill before his first morning coffed (oops, Mittens ain't supposed to drink coffee), it is much more complicated and sinister than that. In early analysis, Slate has this to say about the decision.

There were two battles being fought in the Supreme Court over the Affordable Care Act. Chief Justice John Roberts—and Justice Anthony Kennedy—delivered victory to the right in the one that mattered.

Yes, Roberts voted to uphold the individual mandate, joining the court's liberal wing to give President Obama a 5-4 victory on his signature piece of legislation. Right-wing partisans are crying treason; left-wing partisans saw their predictions of a bitter, party-line defeat undone.

But the health care law was, ultimately, a pretext. This was a test case for the long-standing—but previously fringe—campaign to rewrite Congress' regulatory powers under the Commerce Clause.

This is why the challenge to the ACA, and its progress through the courts, came as a surprise to Democrats and to mainstream constitutional scholars: Three years ago, there was no serious doubt that Congress had the power to impose the individual mandate.

A Bloomberg story last week nicely captured the stakes: "Obama Health Law Seen Valid, Scholars Expect Rejection":

The U.S. Supreme Court should uphold a law requiring most Americans to have health insurance if the justices follow legal precedent, according to 19 of 21 constitutional law professors who ventured an opinion on the most-anticipated ruling in years.

Only eight of them predicted the court would do so.

The scholars expected to see the court gut existing Commerce Clause precedent and overturn the individual mandate in a partisan decision: Five Republican-appointed justices voting to rewrite doctrine and reject Obamacare; four Democratic-appointed justices dissenting.

Roberts was smarter than that. By ruling that the individual mandate was permissible as a tax, he joined the Democratic appointees to uphold the law—while joining the Republican wing to gut the Commerce Clause (and push back against the necessary-and-proper clause as well). Here's the Chief Justice's opinion (italics in original):

Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do. Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce.”

The business about "new and potentially vast" authority is a fig leaf. This is a substantial rollback of Congress' regulatory powers, and the chief justice knows it. It is what Roberts has been pursuing ever since he signed up with the Federalist Society. In 2005, Sen. Barack Obama spoke in opposition to Roberts' nomination, saying he did not trust his political philosophy on tough questions such as "whether the Commerce Clause empowers Congress to speak on those issues of broad national concern that may be only tangentially related to what is easily defined as interstate commerce." Today, Roberts did what Obama predicted he would do.

Roberts' genius was in pushing this health care decision through without attaching it to the coattails of an ugly, narrow partisan victory. Obama wins on policy, this time. And Roberts rewrites Congress' power to regulate, opening the door for countless future challenges. In the long term, supporters of curtailing the federal government should be glad to have made that trade.

Also lost in the din of who won and who lost is the fact that the court severely weakened the provisions dealing with the extension of medicaid, basically telling the states, states like Texas, that they can refuse to extend medicaid's eligibility without losing medicaid funds, thus leaving citizens of Republican run states without the coverage which was included in the now altered law.

This morning when I heard briefly that the court had struck down the "Individual Mandate" but otherwise had affirmed the idea of "Obamacare," I was pleased because I thought that without healthy young people having to be in the plan, the insurance companies would cry foul, and this would all lead to a renewed hue and cry for the only real solution, a single payer system, like we have in Canada and is in effect in most of Western Europe. But as I study the decision, and read opinions about what it means, I'm starting to think that just like everything that the not so Supreme Court has decided since Reagan and the Bushes managed to stack the court with ideologues, only the one percenters and the Corporate Interests who own the government of the United States have chalked up yet another victory.

Maybe we, in the 99%, can take comfort in the fact that the corporate greed bags, who store all their money in the Cayman Islands and other tax havens, and only spend a bit here and there on slave labor in Mexico and China can't steal very much more from us, BECAUSE GODDAMN IT, WE'RE DAMN NEAR OUT OF MONEY, THE GREEDBAGS DAMN NEAR HAVE IT ALL, ALREADY. I know it is difficult for most Canadians to even comprehend the total irrationality of America's decades old battle against any kind of civilized health care, and hard to even take it seriously. That is because we don't have friends and relatives who either died, or at the least lost their homes and wound up on the street and then maybe dead soon after, because they were unfortunate enough to get hurt in an accident or develop a serious disease. I have many friends and relatives in the failing nation to the south, and they don't DARE GET ILL, and preventative medicine? What the hell is that?

BC Mary
Speaks from the Grave

Alex Tsakumis has just posted a excellent post about the aftermath of his recent release of one of David Basi's memos to file that was poo-pooed by the grand poohbahs of our Lamestream Media both print and broadcast with the exception of Michael Smyth, MetroNews and Simi Sara and Jon McComb of CKNW. In it he is especially hard on Leonard Krog, NDP Justice Critic and likely Attorney General in the almost inevitable NDP government coming to a province under your feet, and deservedly so.
Now one of the problems I have with Alex is his disrespect for others who don't agree with him hook line and sinker, and the way he immediately disses such as being kooks, drug addicts, gossip mongers, conspiracy theorists and worst of all died in the wool NDP fanatics.

Well perhaps Alex should check out Mary's archives for July of 2009. During June and July that year many of us were writing, emailing and calling Mr. Krog to do something about the upcoming five year anniversary date of the BC Rail Underhanded Deal, when various benefits (undeserved in our estimation) were due to accrue to CN and Gordo's buddy David MacLean. I never got even an automated response from him, though I did from Carole James. I am going to re-post now her post from July 31, but to anyone interested in the background of this case, at a time when AGT had little or nothing to say about it (because he liked Gordo better than he does Christy?), Mary knocked it out of the park with NO consideration for NDP feelings. And if one is really interested peruse the whole month's posts in which she repeatedly discusses the upcoming anniversary, legal challenges to the deal being pursued in Prince George at the time, and the tragic deaths of Don Faulkner and Tom Dodd due to CN using prairie grade rolling stock on oversize trains in BC's mountainous terrain.
Reading  BC Rail: A Job for a Warrior , it is difficult to detect Mary's  die-hard NDP fealty.

BC Rail: a job for a warrior

July 31, 2009

BC's Opposition Justice Critic is a job for a warrior Correctly known as the Opposition Critic for the Attorney-General

The Opposition Justice Critic is the official voice of dissent in a parliamentary democracy. It's a very special voice. The OJC can speak like an avenging warrior to express the people's dismay, our pain, and our hopes when a government goes wrong. Hymns of praise would be sung for his honesty, courage, vision, and protection at a time of incalculable loss augmented by deceit.

If British Columbia's actual, current Opposition Critic for the Attorney-General (Opposition Justice Critic) had acted differently, he would be remembered in poetry and song far into the future.

But that special warrior-hero role remains unclaimed, and the duties of high justice have been left undone. During the chaotic years of the Campbell Administration, the United Nations made 9 rulings condemning Gordo's errors. Polite letters are written to the premier. A dainty list of 70 questions is presented in the Legislature (no reply expected). Grammatically correct comments are ready when he visits the BCRail trial. Runnymede is mentioned more often than Prince George. But justice for the people? I don't think so.

Recently, people in British Columbia stood up, ready to face the threat of the BCR-CN deal's 5th anniversary triggering more benefits to CN to be taken from our ownership of BCRail. Citizens were seeking simple justice. We thought that the Opposition Justice Critic would understand that, and invited him to be our guide and advisor.

We asked our OJC to demand that government "Show us the deal", and wondered if "an injunction, or other means" could stop the deal until the implications are clear. Rumours say that there is an option for re-possession of the BC Railway "for cause" and that cause does exist. That priceless BCR lands would slide into CN hands as a gift on the 5th anniversary. That certain BCRail lines would be abandoned leaving communities stranded. And more.

These are not minor concerns.

So what happened? Does British Columbia have this heroic warrior-figure who leaps into action, defending the people against injustice? No.

Did citizens spontaneously rise up to write and telephone him? Yes, they did. I wrote 3 times, myself.

Did the Opposition Justice Critic take notice? Maybe. I was told that this blog is read "with respect" in Opposition quarters. But who knows?

Did the OJC offer his advice? his legal opinion? helpful information? his personal guidance? No, he did not. It was as if his face was turned away from us.

Was there any response at all? From the OJC, no. From his assistants, yes.

His assistants prepared an identical form letter which was emailed to most (not all) of us, on July 13, 2009. Sly. By then, it was too late to head off the windfall benefits to CN triggered by the 5th anniversary of the deal. The Opposition's explanation, over the OJC's printed signature, was as follows:

* An injunction is too expensive. (Ignore the fact that Maude Barlow, for The Council of Canadians, is seeking an injunction this week to protect a water source. And B.C.'s Opposition Justice Critic can't even discuss the topic of lands, railway lines, communities, and the public good?)

* We would have no "standing" before the court for an injunction. (We, the previous owners of BCRail, would have no "standing"??)

* No mention was made of "by other means" which we believed a lawyer would know about. It was an embarrassing list of excuses for doing nothing, sent to us the day before it was possible to do anything.

Which maybe wouldn't be as bad, if our Opposition Justice Critic hadn't held a Vancouver press conference the next day ... the next day being the 5th anniversary which the citizens themselves had called "BCRail Day".

His press conference gave a public impression that he believed what we believed: that further outrageous benefits would roll out of the secret BCR-CN agreement and into the pockets of CN, without the people knowing.

But was he agreeing that the deal should be stopped? No. So why did he set up a press conference for July 14, 2009?

The purpose of that press conference was, I believe, to make it easy for Big Media in Vancouver to quote him as being "aware" of the 5th anniversary and its ramifications, to pretend that he was leading this rally ... and to reassure the Campbell Government that he certainly wasn't about to rock the boat. He was saying, in my view, "Gordo's Gang will lose the next election and I want to be premier. So trust me. This is my promise: if I'm premier of BC, nothing will change." Message received.

A heroic Justice Critic would have stood like a proud warrior, tall and determined on BC Rail Day, defending the rightful interests of his people.

Like an avenging angel, he would have been challenging, pushing, embarrassing the government, raising his voice so all could hear his call for justice: "It's been 5 years!" he would have said, "I challenge the Campbell Government to immediately SHOW US THE DEAL. No contract is legal if one of the parties have never seen the agreement -- and the people of B.C. are one of the parties! I challenge the Campbell Government to stop right here!"

Then he would roar like a lion: "This is my personal injunction upon this government. Put a hold on that CN deal. Show us the agreement. Then consult with the people." It really didn't seem a lot to ask.

Did our well-paid OJC stand up for the people of British Columbia? No, he didn't.

Is there any indication that our unhero is looking into re-negotiating the BCR-CN deal? Re-possessing BC Rail? Or challenging the terms of the agreement in any way? No, no indication whatever.

A warrior Opposition Justice Critic, fighting for the people of B.C. would be a hero on a high pedestal in British Columbia these days. But in my opinion, that empty pedestal should have a Help Wanted sign attached. - BC Mary.

Robin Mathews
to the Rescue

Amazingly enough, folks in the Mainstream Media are talking about the BC Rail Scam again or still. Not all of them, according to the Three Amigos, Dean Vaughn, Keith Balderdash and Bill "not so" Good, there is still nothing to see here, after all we had a trial (barf - two witnesses couldn't seem to remember anything beyond their name) and the bad guys sucked it up and took a plea, for the bargain price of six million dollars. Michael Smyth, some other folks as CKNW and MetroNews have at least acknowledged the release by Alex Tsukamis of another "Memo to File" from 2003 written by the head bad guy, Dave Basi, and notarized by one of his attorneys - though still compared to Glen Clark's deck in East Van, the entire BC Rail Theft and subsequent miscarriage of justice is small potatoes or non-existent to Glow Ball, CeeTeeVee and even the CBC. I guess this would go to prove the meme that the media has a liberal bias, if it weren't for the fact that the BC LIEberals are far from actual Liberals and more like an amalgamation of HarperCons, frustrated SoCreds and recently relocated "the Conservatives aren't right wing enough for us" Wild Rose adherents, who've moved to BC to escape the Socialist Alison Redford regime in Alberty.

Imagine my surprise and joy when I checked my email this morning to find a new essay by Robin Mathews. So I've already posted it over at BC Mary's Blog so hie thee on over and check out Little Moral Moments in the Corrupt Swamp of B.C. Politics? at her place.

We've had the Blues since 1970

I've often referred to Hansard and even used excerpts from it here at the House, but yesterday I learned that the Campbell government actually did something admirable early in their reign of terror. I had only ever sought out Hansard entries from the last ten years or so, especially those days when Joy and Jenny had the unenviable task of trying to hold 77 BC liaRs somewhat accountable for their systematic raping of British Columbia. I knew that Hansard had started being published in BC around 1970, but didn't think that any of those sessions would be online from before the internet even really existed. But lo and behold with a little research yesterday I discovered that in 2002 the government initiated a project to bring into the digital age all of Hansard going right back to January 1970.

About the Old Hansards Web Project

British Columbia Hansard Services has had electronic versions of transcripts and indexes available to the public on the Internet since the mid 1990s. In the past, access to these products has been limited to those documents produced since the 35th parliament. Public access to Hansard documents published prior to 1991 has been restricted to the bound volumes held by a limited number of university and regional libraries.

In January 2002, an initiative was undertaken to convert Hansard transcripts from the 29th to 34th parliaments into an electronic format for publication on the Internet. The project required electronically scanning over 78,000 pages cut from bound Hansard transcripts and converting these images into over 2,200 text documents using optical character recognition software. This web-conversion process resulted in documents that are about 98% accurate. To provide our clients with a product that is 100% accurate, the page numbers in the transcripts have been hyperlinked to the image files for each page. This gives the user the ability to search and copy from a text file with the added advantage of being able to view an exact facsimile of the original published page.

I applaud the first term Campbell government, a government then and since not noted for transparency, for this effort. Of course, the blues from 1970 to 1995, don't really reveal any of their many secrets, but they are are wonderful resource for anyone interested in the record of the B.C. Legislature going all the way back to the last couple years of W.A.C. Bennett's twenty year run.

 Click here to peruse Hansard from the first sitting of the 29th Parliament on January 22, 1970 when the House consisted of:

Alberni	Howard Richmond McDiarmid.
Atlin	Frank Arthur Calder
Boundary-Similkameen	Francis Xavier Richter.
Burnaby-Edmonds	Gordon Hudson Dowding.
Burnaby-North	Eileen Elizabeth Dailly.
Burnaby-Willingdon	James Gibson Lorimer.
Cariboo	Alexander Vaughan Fraser.
Chilliwack	William Kenneth Kiernan.
Columbia River	James R. Chabot.
Comox	Daniel R.J. Campbell.
Coquitlam	David Barrett.
Cowichan-Malahat	Robert Martin Strachan.
Delta	Robert Wenman.
Dewdney	George Mussallem.
Esquimalt	Herbert J. Bruch.
Fort George	Ray Gillis Williston.
Kamloops	Philip Arthur Gaglardi.
Kootenay	Leo Thomas Nimsick.
Langley	Hunter Bertram Vogel.
Mackenzie	Isabel Pearl Dawson.
Nanaimo	Frank James Ney.
Nelson-Creston	Wesley Drewett Black.
New Westminster	Dennis G. Cocke.
North Okanagan	Patricia Jane Jordan.
North Peace River	Dean Edward Smith.
North Vancouver-Capilano	David Maurice Brousson
North Vancouver-Seymour	Barrie Aird Clark
Oak Bay	George Scott Wallace.
Omineca	Cyril Morley Shelford.
Prince Rupert	William Harvey Murray.
Revelstoke-Slocan	Burton Peter Campbell.
Richmond	Ernest A. LeCours.
Rossland-Trail	Donald Leslie Brothers.
Saanich and the Islands	John Douglas Tisdalle.
Shuswap	Willis Franklin Jefcoat.
Skeena	Dudley George Little.
South Okanagan	William Andrew Cecil Bennett.
South Peace River	Donald Albert Marshall.
Surrey	Ernest Hall.
Vancouver-Burrard	Harold James Merilees
	Bert Price.
Vancouver Center	Harold Peter Capozzi.
	Evan Maurice Wolfe.
Vancouver East	Alexander Barrett Macdonald.
	Robert Arthur Williams.
Vancouver-Little Mountain	Leslie Raymond Peterson.
	Grace Mary McCarthy.
Vancouver-Point Grey	Patrick Lucey McGeer.
	Garde Basil Gardom.
Vancouver South	Ralph Raymond Loffmark.
	Agnes Kripps.
Victoria	William Neelands Chant.
	Waldo McTavish Skillings.
West Vancouver-Howe Sound	Louis Allan Williams.
Yale-Lillooet	William Leonard Hartley

"K. L. MORTON,

"Chief Electoral Officer

and Registrar-General of Voters."