Mr. Denis:

What total amount has the federal government

(a) guaranteed: (b) advanced, to date, (1) with respect to each province of Canada; (ii) to the city of Montreal; (iii) to the city of Toronto, under the National Housing Act?

(Translation) :

Mr. Bourget:

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked me if he could have this question dropped from the order paper because he intends to submit it later with a few changes.

(Text):

Mr. Speaker:

Question dropped.

1. What are diversion charges?

2. How much wheat was shipped through the port of Churchill, during the last season of navigation?

3. On how much of it were diversion charges paid?

4. What was the amount of the diversion charge per bushel?

5. What was the total amount of the charges paid in the above period on Churchill-shipped wheat?

6. To what grain companies were the charges paid?

7. What service did such companies render for such payment?

1. A diversion charge is a charge assessed by an elevator company when grain shipped from one of its country elevators is diverted away from that company's terminal elevator to another destination. Diversion charges are a long established practice in the western grain trade. Diversion charges originate from the fact that elevator companies consider their country and terminal elevators, as an entity; terminal revenues being an important factor in determining the basis upon which country elevators can be operated. Therefore, the trade practice has developed that when a company losses terminal handling on grain through the diversion of a country elevator shipment to a destination other than a company's terminal, a diversion charge is made in lieu of terminal earnings.

Diversions of grain are necessary if mills or other processors located west of the lakehead are to receive their grain requirements.

Most diversion charges are paid by mills, processors, etc., directly to elevator companies on the basis of rates negotiated between them. The Canadian wheat board is only involved in diversion charges in respect to:

(a) Grain diverted to interior terminal elevators.

(b) Grain diverted to Churchill.

(c) Grain diverted to Prince Rupert.

These diversion charges are a matter of

negotiation between the board and the handling companies and form part of the over-all handling agreement between the board and the handling companies.

2. 12,484,893-4 bushels (export shipments).

3. Diversion charges were paid on all wheat shipped from country stations to Churchill for prompt export or storage.

4. 1J cents per bushel.

5. $185,490.21. (Consists of diversion charges on wheat shipped to Churchill during the 1954 navigation season and on wheat subsequently shipped to Churchill to refill the elevator.)

6. To all elevator companies shipping wheat to Churchill for account of the Canadian wheat board. It is not the policy of the board to disclose the competitive position of various elevator companies in their capacity as agents of the board.

7. See answer to No. 1.

1. Has the Department of Public Works a lease on the building used as a post office in Whalley, British Columbia?

2. If so, when was the present lease signed, and when does it expire?

3. Who were the principal owners of the building at the time of signing the original lease, and what was the occupation of each?

4. Has there been any change in ownership since the time of signing the original lease? If so, who are the present owners?

5. How many square feet of floor space does the building contain?

6. (a) What is the total annual rent paid for the said building?

(b) What is the assessed value of the building at the present time?

(c) What was the assessed value of the building

at time originally leased? '

7. At the time of renting the building who appraised its rental valuation?

8. Was the building constructed according to government specifications? If so, what is the description?

Questions

9. How much was spent by the Department oi Public Works for repairs and maintenance of this building in each year since the lease was signed?

1. Yes.

2. Present lease covers a period from May 1, 1951, and expires on April 30, 1958.

3. Mr. Thomas Binnie, real estate agent.

4. Not to knowledge of the Department of Public Works.

5. Building contains 5,040 sq. ft. with a loading platform of 840 sq. ft.

6. (a) $5,964; (b) $20,340; (c) $16,600.

7. The district architect of the Department of Public Works.

8. (a) Building contracted to owners specifications and with the approval of the Department of Public Works.

(b) One storey masonry building, concrete floor, asphalt tile lobby, plaster walls and ceilings, bonded roof, fluorescent lights, oil fire and hot air heating.

9. Under the terms of the lease the owner is responsible for repairs to the building.

1367 HOWE STREET, VANCOUVER, B.C.

1. Has the Royal Canadian Air Force a property under lease at 1367 Howe street in the city of Vancouver, British Columbia?

2. If so, when was the lease signed and when does it expire?

3. For what purpose was this property leased?

4. What is the monthly rental?

5. Who are the owners of this building and what is the usual occupation of each?

6. What is the description of the building?

7. At the time of leasing the building what person or persons appraised the rental value?

8. Has any portion of the building been sublet? If so, to whom and for what purpose?

9. What is the (a) assessed value; (b) appraised value of the building at the present time?

10. What was (a) the assessed value; (b) the appraised value at the time of leasing?

11. Is there a penthouse on the building?

12. If so, has it been sublet?

13. Who is the lessee, what rental is paid and for what purpose is it used?

14. How much has been spent by the government on repairs and maintenance of this building since it was first leased?

1. The Department of Public Works leases space at 1363-1367 Howe street, Vancouver, for the Royal Canadian Air Force (ground observer corps).

2. The initial lease was signed on May 12, 1952, for 2400 sq. ft. at $4,800 per annum or $2.00 per sq. ft. The lease was revised on March 1, 1954 to cover a total of 4752 sq. ft. at $9,000 per annum or $1.89 per sq. ft. It will expire on February 28, 1959.

3. For the ground observer corps of the Royal Canadian Air Force.

4. $750.

5. Mr. Rowe Holland, barrister.

Mr. William C. Couper, retired.

6. One storey masonry building with office space on the mezzanine floor.

7. Evaluated by district architect of the Department of Public Works for rental purposes.

8. No.

9. (a) Assessed value; Land, $5,000; building, $21,700; total, $26,700.

(b) No formal appraisal obtained. (See answer to No. 7).

10. (a) Assessed value in December, 1951, when initial lease being considered: Land, $10,000; building, $35,000; total, $45,000.

(b) Cost of construction including land at $10,000 was $52,296.

11. No. A portion has extra ceiling clearance as required for the plotting room.

12. No.

13. Answered by Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

14. Under the terms of the lease the lessor is responsible for general repairs. The Department of Public Works made the following expenditures for miscellaneous minor repairs since the building was first leased: 1952-53, $15.05; 1953-54, $94.55; 1954-55, $6.00.

The cleaning is carried out by the Department of National Defence at its own cost.

Mr. Huffman:

With reference to civil defence exercise Alert No. 2, held jointly with the Americans on June 15, has a review of the results of this exercise been undertaken since that date, and if so. was the test considered satisfactory?

Mr. Marlin:

A review of the entire exercise was recently made jointly by the Canadian and United States civil defence authorities but the findings are not yet available. However preliminary assessment of the Canadian part of the exercise indicates that it was eminently satisfactory and that there was at least an 80 per cent improvement in the effectiveness with which the exercise was carried out as compared with alert No. 1 held last year.

There was no attempt in Canada to carry out a test evacuation in any city in conjunction with alert No. 2. Evacuation trials in Canada were held separately in St. John's, Newfoundland, before June 15 and in Brandon, Manitoba, on June 26. Others are scheduled for later this year in a number of other Canadian cities. Canada's part in alert No. 2 was limited by design to a test of communication facilities and procedures, involving the surprise transmission of attack warning information to a number of participating cities. None of these cities had any

advance information as to the time or nature of the attack that they would have to cope with on June 15. The local and provincial organizations were required in their turn to report to the federal civil defence control centre at Arnprior on the detailed nature of the damage to their target area, the steps being taken to cope with it, and the requirements for aid from outside the target area.

The purpose of this exercise was to probe and expose our operations and other weaknesses. While there were a number of delays and errors in the transmission of messages, these errors and delays were not too numerous and both the provincial and federal civil defence authorities have learned some lessons from the exercise which will lead to improvements in communications methods and procedures when future tests are carried out.

1. What is the monthly rental paid for the building used for the post office at Marysville, British Columbia?

2. What amount per month is paid for the caretaking services of this building?

3. What amount was paid to the owner of this building for furnishings, heating equipment, electric wiring and light fixtures?

4. What amount was paid for fuel for this building for the calendar year 1954?

5. Is this building being rented under lease?

6. If so, when does the lease expire?

1. $55 a month.

2. Owner is responsible for janitor and cleaning services.

3. $133.

4. $72.56.

5. Yes.

6. March 31, 1956.