I understand that, since you wish to take up in Cabinet the recommendations regarding the extension of the I.R.O. mandate to June 30, 1951, which were contained in my memorandum of March 28, you would like some further details regarding the financial implications of these recommendations.

The Director General has recommended that the I.R.O. continue to accept applications for assistance up to December 31, 1949, and that the resettlement and repatriation programme (not the care and maintenance programme) be continued to June 30, 1951, which is one year beyond the term originally proposed. It would, of course, be possible to urge that the I.R.O. go out of existence on June 30, 1950, and that no further responsibilities be accepted for resettlement and repatriation operations after that date. In this case the problem would resolve itself into that of statelessness which would presumably require only a small administrative type of machinery and would not call for financial comparison with the Director General's proposals for a continuance of the operational programme.

Any comparison must, therefore, be between the continuance of the repatriation and resettlement programme for one year under the auspices of I.R.O. and the transfer of that programme for one year to the United Nations itself. The figure of fifty-five millions given as an estimate of the cost of this programme by the Director General is based on the assumption that it would be carried out by I.R.O. The total cost, if carried out directly by the United Nations, is not known and would not necessarily be the same. Assuming for purposes of comparison that it would be the same, the Canadian share would he almost identical in each case. The total annual budget of I.R.O. is one hundred and fifty-five million, of which Canada pays 3.2% to the administrative budget and 3.5% to the operational budget. Since our share of the United Nations budget is 3.2%, the difference, as stated above, is slight. This arises from the fact that the United States pays 39.89% of the administrative budget, and 45.75% of the operational budget of I.R.O.

A further consideration which might weigh against any attempt to have the United Nations assume the costs of a resettlement and repatriation programme from 1950-51 is that there would undoubtedly be strenuous opposition from the more than forty United Nations members who have so far got off scot free.

A.D.P. HEENEY