Natural Resources committee  Could I just add to that? The funding for these programs is set to expire at the end of March, but we have made application to the government, and the industry organizations have made representations that the programs be extended or replaced by equivalent programs. So we are seeking the support of the government in the budget speech to see a continuation of these programs, because they're absolutely vital to the mining industry in the north.

Natural Resources committee  Yes, there are royalties payable to Canada on all mine development in the north.

Natural Resources committee  It's a sliding scale. I don't have the exact numbers with me, but it's approximately 5% tax. That's a mining tax in addition to the profits tax, of course, that will be paid on normal corporate profits. There's also a mining tax that's payable directly on the mining revenue.

Natural Resources committee  Canadian Zinc is a Canadian company that is almost 100% owned by Canadian shareholders. It is listed on the American bulletin board stock exchange, so we would have some U.S. retail shareholders, but percentage-wise, I would say that 70% to 80% of the shares are owned by Canadians, with perhaps 10% to 20% of the shares outside the country.

Natural Resources committee  Our company will produce a lead and zinc concentrate. That is, our principal products are lead and zinc, but they're not in final form. They have to go to a smelter. There are four lead-zinc smelters in Canada--well, there are three now, because the one in Timmins has recently shut down--so the likelihood is that the lead and zinc concentrate will be transported to the Trail smelter in British Columbia, or the Horne smelter in Quebec, or perhaps the Flin Flon smelter in Manitoba.

Natural Resources committee  Both the Chamber of Mines and the Mining Association of Canada have issued detailed recommendations as to how the legislation process could be improved. I'm afraid there is a very long list one could come out with. There are certainly significant uncertainties surrounding the whole issue of aboriginal consultation.

Natural Resources committee  There are significant duplications and overlaps. For example, you could have seven government departments each independently submitting a report to the review board. Each of those seven departments comments on everything, instead of just commenting on what might concern them. There's significant waste and duplication at the government level, where there is no coordination, or not enough coordination, between the reports that are submitted by the government departments to the review board.

Natural Resources committee  We have already signed impact and benefit agreements with two first nations, and under each agreement the relevant first nation participates in the projects for revenue sharing. So it's effectively, if you want to call it that, a type of royalty arrangement whereby a portion of the profit or of the revenue accrues to the first nation.

Natural Resources committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. In addition to my role as chairman of Canadian Zinc Corporation, I'm also a director and the immediate past president of the NWT and Nunavut Chamber of Mines and a director of the Mining Association of Canada. Both of these organizations represent the Canadian mining industry.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  You're referring to the private member's bill that has been proposed.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  I believe the mining industry does not support the enactment of that legislation. There are significant concerns with regard to the attempts to enforce foreign standards in Canada. The industry has made a recommendation for an alternative approach, an alternative structure, and the Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy has adopted a plan and a policy on implementation of corporate social responsibility on a voluntary basis by the mining industry—self-regulated, self-imposed, with testing and with accountability.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  If I could very briefly pick up there, if the proposal, for example, was to change the number of boards or to change the jurisdiction of the board, that's a fundamental change that I think would cause a problem and that would require reopening of the underlying agreement, because they were long fought and long negotiated.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  I just wanted to add to Daniel's response that from the mining industry's point of view, the mining industry will follow the infrastructure. If the power is already there, you will get more exploration, and that exploration will lead to more mines. It's the chicken and the egg. But the responsibility, the leading role, we would suggest, very much rests with the government.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  The mine was built in 1980-82, and I believe you may have photographs of the mine as it exists today. In 1980-82, $65 million was spent in building the mine, which is a couple of hundred million dollars in today's money. For financial reasons, the mine did not go into production.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  It's a large question. The view is that it requires the re-opening of the land claims agreement. But there are many areas in which improvements could be made without doing that. If the federal government asked the boards to develop their own regulations voluntarily, and if the boards agreed to impose timelines on the process, that would help.