I can try to answer part of it.
With regard to the question of value-added, I think there are two ways to look at it. There's the downstream approach, where you look at the processing of the material and convert it into various products. Another form of value-added, as I was saying earlier in my presentation, stimulates a lot of companies that feed into the mining industry. You can stimulate a lot of smaller companies. For example, we know that Syncrude spends about $50 million a year in terms of aboriginal businesses. In the north, Diavik spent roughly $600 million out of $1.3 billion in terms of supplies, services, etc., for aboriginal communities. It's another form of value-added in the sense that you get a horizontal impact.
Going downstream is far more difficult. What do you have to do? The mining industry very quickly tried to go downstream years ago. Mining is very different from manufacturing. The mining industry doesn't really have to sell its metal. There are international exchanges, and you can sell all that you can produce. You may not get the price you want, but you can get rid of everything. It's not a marketing type of arrangement, whereas manufacturing, with product differentiation and marketing with salesmen, is a very different business.
Inco tried to go into the battery business; they failed. Noranda went into the manufacture of wire; they got out of it. Alcan tried to go downstream and they were into the field; they got out of it. They found out that they couldn't make profit because it was not their field. The question then becomes, how do you stimulate investment?
I agree with you in concept. In principle, I'd love to see a lot more use of our materials within Canada, but it may not be realistic from a commercial point of view.