Search Documents

By Dean McDonald

The Committee Bay Greenstone Belt extends over 300km and is one of the largest unexplored greenstone belts in North America with excellent gold and diamond potential. Committee Bay Resources Limited holds over 550,000 acres of land with prospective geology in the Committee Bay area southwest of Melville Peninsula, Nunavut. Committee Bay is a typical Archean greenstone belt comparable to the Yellowknife, Red Lake, Kirkland Lake and other prolific gold belts. Drilling during 2003 at Committee Bay resulted in: 1) the discovery of high-grade gold-bearing quartz veins with silicification and sulphidation at Three Bluffs, and 2) the continuation of high-grade gold mineralization in the hinge area of the iron formation at Inuk. Gold mineralization at Three Bluffs is identified in iron formation and adjacent sediments and has been traced by drilling for over 700m. The Three Bluffs iron formation is open to depth and along strike where is has been traced on surface for over 6km. In January 2004 Committee Bay and joint venture partner Gold Field?s announced a $7.1 million exploration program for the Committee Bay project in 2004. A total of 8,000m in exploration drilling has been approved for the expansion of the Three Bluffs to the resource stage and drilling of at least five new target areas. Additional mapping, sampling and geophysics will be used to identify new gold targets along the very prospective Committee Bay belt.

May 1, 2004

By Robert B. Parsons

"""I would be a rich man if I had a dime for every man hour spent by the bureaucracy on changing tax legislation."" Anonymous.The mind of a cynic might very well conjure thoughts about ""change for the sake of change"", given the protracted saga of federal sales tax reform in Canada. The latest chapter unfolded this summer when the Commodity Tax Review Group released its important report. Whatever sales tax changes, if any, are finally adopted will have profound effects on many aspects of doing business. The capital-intensive mining industry will not escape these effects.IntroductionThe Federal Sales Tax Review Committee, established by the Minister of Finance earlier this year, has published a report that is sharply critical of the government proposals to shift the incidence of federal sales tax from the manufacturer level to the whole sale level (sales to retailers). The Report recommends a continuance of the present manufacturer's tax, for the present, but with significant changes that would increase the tax cost on certain imports, smooth the administrative machinery and make appeals and determinations more open and equitable. For the longer term, the Report recommends a shift of the tax base to the retail level.Reform of the federal sales tax system has been under consideration for several decades. Briefly the history is as follows: 1940 Report of Rowell-Sirois Commission-proposed the eventual elimination of federal sales tax1956 Report of Federal Sales Tax Committee-proposed a shift in tax from manufacturer to wholesaler level1966 Report of Carter Commission-proposed shift to a retail tax1975 Discussion Paper on Federal Sales and Excise Taxation-concluded that retail tax conceptually best but provincial agreement/administrative problems present a major hurdle-proposed wholesale tax as best practical approach1977 Report of Commodity Tax Review Group"

Jan 1, 1983

During the year Jan. 1 to Dec. 31, 1916, 962 applications for member-ship in the Institute were received, as compared to 558 during the corresponding period in 1915. The lines along which the Committee has, worked during the year, group themselves under seven principal heads. Large Companies.-Early in the year a letter was addressed to each member of the Institute who is the executive head of an organization, pointing out to him the advantages that would accrue to that organization through having as many of its subordinate members as were qualified participating in the activities of the Institute. This was followed by a second letter to those who made no reply to the first. The response to these letters was very gratifying, 12 new members having been secured at a single plant, and smaller numbers at others. This was effectively supplemented by our President, who wrote the executive heads of some of the largest mining and smelting companies, pointing out to them the advantage to be derived from sending some of the junior members of their staff to attend the Arizona Meeting. One organization sent 24 of its younger men, many of whom were not members of the Institute, but who, subsequently sent in applications for membership. It is to be hoped that the precedent thus set' will be acted 'on in -fuller measure in succeeding years.

Jan 2, 1917

C. R. CORNING, Chairman. ADOLPHE E. BORIE, First Vice-Chairman. THOMAS T. READ, Secretary, Woolworth Bldg., New York, N. Y. Vie-Chairmen. JOHN H. ALLEN, GEORGE M. COLVOCORESSES, RICHARD M. ATWATER, JR., ROBERT PEELE, GEORGE D. BARRON, CHARLES P. PERIN, A. CHESTER BEATTY, JOSEPH A. VAN MATER, J. PARKE CHANNING, ARTHUR L. WALKER. D. C. Bard, Howard Eckfeldt. Philip N. Moore, W. de L. Benedict, R. C. Gemmell, T. H. O'Brien, John C. Branner, F. Louis Grammer, James J. Ormsbee. Palmer Carter, Ernest A. Hersam, Edward W. Parker, Allen J. Clark, Edwin C. Holden, John B. Porter, F. Crabtree, William L. Honnold, R. DI. Raymond, George G. Crawford, Reginald E. Hore, Robert H. Richards, O. C. Davidson, C. Colcock Jones, LeRoy Slash, E. V. D'Invilliers, Eugene P. Kennedy, Frederick H. Sexton, James S. Douglas, Chester F. Lee, Henry L. Smyth, Walter Douglas, Richard S. McCaffery, F. W. Traphagen, Howard N. Eavenson, James F. McClelland, Elton W. Walker. Milton H. McLean, The Chairman of the Committee on the eve of his departure frog -,he country for an extended stay, addressed the following letter t ,he President of the Institute NEW YORK, N. Y., APRIL 19, 1913.

Jan 5, 1913

The work of the Committee on Industrial Preparedness* is well summed up in the following letter written by Thomas A. Edison, Chair-man of the Naval Consulting Board, after President Wilson and signed the army appropriation and army reorganization bills: "The Committee on Industrial Preparedness of the Naval Consulting Board, of which committee Howard E. Coffin is chairman, after a five months' campaign in many ways unique in vigor and vision has played a very definite part in the measures for the national defense which have just become law. It is responsible for having laid the foundation for a true industrial preparedness in this nation. "Five months ago the committee, wholly non-partisan in make-up, acting with the civil, mechanical, mining and electrical engineers and the chemists of the country, members of five great scientific bodies, began its work in' every nook and cranny of the land. The purpose was to prepare American industry efficiently to support the armed forces of America in the event of war. "The public, the business men and the legislators at Washington knew little regarding the demands on industry in connection with modern war. No department at Washington was charged with the duty of coordinating the needs of the army and navy with transportation, industry, and kindred functions. The purchasing, quartermaster's and ordnance departments of the army and navy were unable to buy military supplies except by competitive offering in the open market. No one had considered the need, and no legislative machinery was in existence, for preventing the presence of skilled workers on the fighting front when they would in time of war be needed in the factories, mills and mines of the country. Neither at Washington or elsewhere was there even a list of the industrial resources of the nation in such shape as could be used for practical purposes in case war should come. "The three things, then, that the committee headed by Mr. Coffin set out to do and that now have been brought about were as follows: First, to mobilize concretely the business men of America and their output against a day of need. This meant chiefly to discover in fullest detail just what equipment our manufacturers possessed that might be swung over to supply the army and navy swiftly and bountifully from the hour the colors were raised. In a few weeks this initial task, which has been a truly colossal one, will be at an end. A complete report of the equipment of practically every concern of substantial size in the country is now in the hands of the - committee. Directly in charge of the great inventory has been W. S. Gifford, Supervising Director of the Committee. The second step was to procure legislation making possible the placing by the war and navy departments of annual orders for munitions in small quantities to American manufacturers now not producing such things, so that quietly, efficiently and thoroughly they could learn in time of peace how to supply the government in time of war. The new laws make all this possible. It should be said here that this practice will bring about a geographical diffusion of munition plants all over our country, instead of affording us only a few such concerns for the most part near the exposed seaboards, as at present. It is obvious that this system will also throttle all talk of a munitions trust.

Jan 10, 1916

A plan which has just been approved by President Wilson, by, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Naval Consulting Board, provides for the active cooperation of the Associated Advertising Clubs of the World with the 30,000 engineers who will soon undertake the task of making a card index survey of American industry, so that it may be prepared for national defense, if need comes. Herbert S. Houston, President of the Associated Clubs of the World comments on the plan. "Through the great power of advertising we expect-to arouse manufacturers, workingmen, businessmen, in fact the whole country, to the vital need of making industry the basic line of defense so that, if necessity arises, it can supply munitions quickly and abundantly. "This is not a war measure, but a peace measure. The militarist will support it and so will the pacifist, as well as the great body of Americans in between. So the slogan `national defense and international peace, has been adopted believing that the two causes will be best served by linking them together. "While the primary thing, of course, is service to the country, it is manifest that this work of the engineers will be of the greatest service to industry in times of peace. If industry is mobilized for defense, it will be placed on a basis of efficiency to meet the keen competition that will surely follow the present war." Howard E. Coffin, one of the leaders of the American automobile industry, in outlining the far-reaching plans of his committee, the Committee of Industrial Preparedness of the Naval Consulting Board, said: "At the outset I wish to emphasize the absolutely non-partisan nature of this work. I am not even familiar with the political affiliations of the great majority of the members of the Board or of my committee. In setting out to, mobilize the industrial resources of the United States, we are concerned only with the benefit to the nation, and to that end we have called into being an organization made up of the best technical and business brains of the country, and that organization will work along business lines with strictly business methods. I think it reasonable to say that this is a movement perhaps unique in the history of national governments, and one geared up to the highest standards of twentieth century efficiency. "It is vitally necessary that American industry be made aware of the part it must play in the national defense. Our whole conception of warfare has been changed almost overnight. Our military heads at Washington are largely, of course, graduates of the very best technical schools, have been taught the profession of fighting, and are masters of that profession. As members of the Naval Consulting Board, we are unable to tell these men how to do their work. But while these departmental heads have lived with military problems all their adult years, we on the other hand have slept and eaten and lived with the industrial problems of the country. The two questions are wholly distinct, and the masters of one cannot possibly be the masters of the other. We are confronted then with the necessity of interlocking these two vast elements of our national life into a great working organization for the national defense. It is that which we are about to do.

Jan 5, 1916

Jan 1, 1941

Jan 1, 1941

Jan 1, 1935

Jan 1, 1935

Jan 1, 1935

Jan 1, 1935

Jan 1, 1949

Jan 1, 1935

Jan 1, 1949

The Joint Committee (consisting of the chairmen of the several society committees), formed under the authority of the five societies, in order to facilitate the carrying out of the organization of an engineer reserve as part of the military forces of the United States, for which work it was appointed, now begs leave to report as follows: .The Committee has been in personal communication with the Secretary of War, the officers of the General Staff, the officers of the War College, and with the Hon. George E. Chamberlain, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Military Affairs, and the Hon. James Hay, Chairman of the House Committee on Military Affairs. As the result of these interviews there has been incorporated in the draft of the legislation proposed by the Secretary of War and included also in the bills drawn by the committees of the Senate and of the House a provision for the organization of an officers reserve on broad lines, including an engineer reserve. As now drawn these bills provide that an officer shall be commissioned for a period of five years with rank up to and including that of major, after passing such requirements of character and qualifications as shall be prescribed by the President. The bill also provides that a certain amount of duty with pay shall he performed each year by the officers in the reserve. . The Committee is waiting for the Navy Department to formulate its plans for the increase in the naval forces, and as soon as a decision has been reached by that Department and the Committee is in possession of the facts, the Committee will take up the question of the organization of an engineer reserve for the navy, similar to that contemplated for the army.

Jan 2, 1916

Jan 1, 1935

Jan 1, 1914

Executive A R LEDOUX, Chairman ARTHUR S DWIGHT CHARLES F RAND E P MATHEWSON J V W REYNDERS Membership E DEGOLYER, Chairman W Y WESTERVELT, Vice-chairman WILLIAM H BASSETT H G MOULTON C MINOT WELD Finance WALTER H ALDRIDGE, Chairman GEORGE D BARRON GALEN H CLEVENGER Library GEORGE C STONE,' Chairman JOHN H JANEWAY ALEXANDER C HUMPHREYS, ROBERT LINTON FREDERICK F SHARPLESS

Jan 1, 1923

Jan 1, 1916