Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, for the information of honourable members, I propose to call bills tomorrow, on Wednesday, once we get into government orders.
Madam Speaker: For the information of the House, the government House leader has indicated that tomorrow he will be calling bills.
Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson), that Madam Speaker do now leave the Chair, and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to her Majesty.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Chairperson (Gerry McAlpine): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This afternoon, this section of the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 254 will resume consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Energy and Mines.
When the committee last sat, it had been considering item 23.1 (b) Executive Support (2) Other Expenditures, on page 47 of the Estimates book. Shall this item pass?
Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): If I remember correctly, I believe the minister was about to answer a question I just posed in regard to the change of a goal that was set one year, last year, at 50 percent increase for exploration and this year has dropped to 40 percent. It was my understanding that these goals were set back in '94-95 or maybe even earlier. I was looking for clarification or the rationale for that change.
Hon. David Newman (Minister of Energy and Mines): The goal was 50 percent. It has been revised to 40 percent. We wanted to be more realistic given the market conditions that influence exploration. We, of course, cannot control world metal prices and product demands that ultimately influence corporate investment decisions. What we can do and we are doing is to attempt to create the kind of investment climate in Manitoba that will make our province an attractive place to do business. We are doing this through our nine-point mining investment strategy.
Having said that, how are we progressing towards achieving our goal by the year 2000, using 1993 as a baseline? In 1993, exploration expenditures in Manitoba amounted to $27.4 million. A 40 percent increase would have been $38.4 million. A 50 percent increase would be $41.1 million. In 1996, exploration expenditures totalled $41.2 million. In 1997, although the final figures are not yet available, the forecast is for a slightly higher expenditure level at $41.7 million.
These goals are intended to serve as one of the indicators of how well the industry is doing. Clearly, it is something we as a department cannot take sole credit for. The targets represent our vision of where we would like to see the industry performing in Manitoba on a sustained basis. Our role is to do whatever we can to help industry achieve these goals consistent with the philosophy and policies which I outlined to a certain extent yesterday.
Ms. Mihychuk: One of the other inconsistencies, it seems to me, is the identification of mineral production as a mission. In the '96-97 departmental expenditures, it is identified that the mission or the goal was to increase mineral production in Manitoba by 20 percent. In this year's, '97-98 and '98-99, I do not see that goal represented in the two Estimates books. Can the minister clarify the elimination of that goal?
Mr. Newman: Because of our lack of control over value, because of a lack of control over prices, we felt that it was an indicator which was not even as reliable as the last one to measure progress. So we have forgone utilizing that as a target indicator.
Ms. Mihychuk: Can the minister tell us when these goals were established?
Mr. Newman: The original goals were established three or four years ago, and the revised goals were established in the early part of 1998.
Ms. Mihychuk: Can the minister tell us if the department and the ministry at that time when they set the goals, did they believe these goals were achievable? Were they realistic goals?
Mr. Newman: Long-reach achievable targets, yes.
* (1450)
Ms. Mihychuk: I note that in the 1995 Estimates that the goals are already identified at that time. I have with me other years as we go back. My questions are basically related to the fact that this looks like a long-term attempt to set what I would have considered fairly optimistic goals.
However, it was, I assumed, the result of a process that the department undertook with Industry, perhaps, Labour, the mining sectors and that those goals were taken with some seriousness. I would like to ask the minister what type of process was established to change the goals since they have, in effect, been the department's goals for over three years.
Mr. Newman: I have personal knowledge of the planning process. Shortly after I became minister after January 6, 1997, I participated for the concluding part as an observer to see how the process worked. It is an inclusive, participatory senior-management process where they, with flip charts and facilitation, try and determine the goals.
In previous years, I gather that they have had a participatory process of senior management, and every year they look at revising goals with the view to create optimistic but achievable goals. In the course of reconsidering year after year, they look at market conditions and redefine in accordance with the unforeseeable becoming foreseeable. In other words, they recalibrate based on current information.
Ms. Mihychuk: Well, going back to the '94-95 annual report, I see that there too were established five goals that were carried on for several years, obviously with the long-term goal of reaching them in the year 2000. It seems to me that a person may argue that the goals are changed to meet the convenience of reality, and I question that. It appears to me that we have, in terms of exploration, reached the 40 percent increase from '93. We knew those numbers. I have the history from '93 onwards and it is, I think, somewhat questionable to change the goals based on, I guess, what is convenient and what looks good.
The fact is that the mining prices and values have dropped; therefore, perhaps we will not be able to achieve that target. But it seems misleading or it lessens the value of those goals if we feel that we are able to change them to the convenience of meeting the targets. There have been significant changes in the goals, and one of them is to increase mineral production. That has been eliminated completely. By 20 percent was the goal; it is no longer a goal identified by the department. We see the reduction in the target for mineral exploration has been decreased from 50 percent down to 40 percent.
One of the goals that has been consistent, as far as I can see, is to increase oil production. That is a program that has been highly successful and, you know, that goal is achievable and maybe even might be surpassed, and so be it. If history finds that our goals were somewhat off, I think that is the assessment we make in the year 2000, but at that time we would be able to take a review and analyze our process in an open way and perhaps use the exercise as a way of improving our service or looking at a more realistic target for the next five years. But I would have serious questions about changing the goals, what apparently seems on an annual basis, for what is convenient for the department.
I would ask the minister to perhaps define a more collective process for the definition of these goals, and that may include more of a partnership goal, especially in the area of mineral production and exploration where we have industry presumably working in partnership. Does the minister see a role for the mining association or the mineral sector participating in these goal attainment levels?
Mr. Newman: Since I have become minister, I will always treat your thoughtful considerations which you express here, as will my staff, in deciding what approach they should take in future. I am comfortable with the adjustments that have been made which are relatively minor to the goals. I think given the realities of what has happened in the international marketplace, it would not be sensible to just proceed with the previous year's goals when a 40 percent increase would be an aggressive target, given the attractiveness of investing at this time in any jurisdiction.
But I will share with you something that I have learned so far which sometimes has caused me to wonder whether anything is more important once you have achieved a friendly environment, an attractive environment for investment in terms of fiscal policy and reliability and rule of law and general infrastructure being relatively good, all of the basics for being an attractive place to invest. Once you have done that--and I believe that has been done in Manitoba--we always have to adjust to changes in other jurisdictions to make sure that we continue to be not left far behind or ahead.
But the curious thing that I have learned about the mining industry, even the oil business--maybe mining particularly in Manitoba because it is a much bigger industry--is that the excitement of a find seems to be the most important factor in attracting investment. Now, whether that is right or wrong, it is reality. I just look at Newfoundland and ask myself why did they attract as much investment as they did. If it had not been for Voisey Bay, would they have attracted anything near what they have achieved?
* (1500)
So my greatest hope, which all of the efforts are directed toward, is having a real major mine brought into production, a real major deposit found here that attracts the interest of the world. Nothing else, my experience would suggest, all the other things being attractive, will make a difference and to that extent, and then the forecast will be so inadequate that whoever is fortunate enough to be in the ministry at that time will have difficulty explaining why suddenly your exploration expenditures have increased by maybe 100 percent or 200 percent and why has this happened. I would argue that it is probably because all of the effort was made to have an attractive environment earned over many years which resulted in all of this exploration going on, and suddenly one of them--not suddenly, but at a given point in time pursuant to this evolutionary exploration process, all things came into place and a major discovery was announced or a major mine came into production. That will make all the difference.
So I really will be very candid. I have put less stock in these indicators and far more stock in what kinds of efforts are being put in by the department and what sort of third-party endorsements we get from people in industry and knowledgeable people in mining who speak to how Manitoba is doing relative to other places in the world. The interesting thing I have also discovered is that the statistics, in many cases, do not reflect what I would regard as the superior job Manitoba is doing relative to other jurisdictions, but it does explain why we continue to more than hold our own in the competitive environment out there, that what we need is the magic, the attractiveness of a major find announcement or a major new mine coming into production.
Ms. Mihychuk: There is always a debate as to whether to focus department energies on finding the new big one or directing energies to preserving and supplementing what exists already. Manitoba is facing a crisis in a number of different areas, Leaf Rapids, Flin Flon. Snow Lake underwent a serious closure and reopening. I am not sure of the length of reserves there. Bissett. These are mining communities who have been severely impacted by mine closures. The department has a policy, 8.2, which states: Programs shall be developed to encourage and direct exploration into areas threatened by permanent mine closures. It goes on to state that the intent of the policy is to maintain the economic viability of communities by finding new ore reserves. It goes on as to how the department will conduct its business to meet those ends.
Is the minister saying that in his view the department's goal should be focused on finding the next new ore deposit rather than continuing to look for reserves in established mining community areas?
Mr. Newman: No, it is a combination of both, as that particular policy indicated. There is still a significant amount of proven deposits in the traditional mining areas, and much of that information being in the records, probably of Inco and Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting, and how many mines they have in waiting we can never be sure of.
Ms. Mihychuk: Can the minister tell us the mission or the purpose of the Mining Reserve Fund?
Mr. Newman: I cannot quote it, but the purpose is laid out in the statute, and it is a listing of a number of different items. If you had the statute handy, where we could put our hands on it, I could accurately put into the record what its purpose is. In essence, its purpose is to contribute to the continued employment and economic well-being and health of communities that suffer from the inevitable closure of mines.
The reserve, under The Mining Tax Act, which takes, in an exercise of discretion, a percentage of mining taxes, is used to fund initiatives about or for the benefit of mining communities that may be affected by the total or partial suspension of mining operations.
Ms. Mihychuk: The monies that are collected are through a percentage of the mining taxes. The major producers are, I would presume, the major contributors, or do we have list of companies that are contributing in that sector to supplement the Mining Reserve Fund?
Mr. Newman: The amount of contributions by company is directly related to the profitability, and the size of the company is not the factor. Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting, for example, I am not sure the last time that they made a contribution in the form of mining taxes. Inco is probably the biggest contributor over recent years, and had some dazzling years in the past.
* (1510)
Ms. Mihychuk: How much money was directed from mining taxes into the Mining Reserve Fund in the past fiscal year?
Mr. Newman: The transfer from mining taxes to the reserve for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1997, was $244,000.
Ms. Mihychuk: Is the decision to transfer money made by the Minister of Finance, or is there a set formula for the transfer of funds?
Mr. Newman: It is determined by the Minister of Finance.
Ms. Mihychuk: Would the minister provide, if it is not available now, but for information, the contributions made to the Mining Reserve Fund in the last four years since '95?
Mr. Newman: Yes.
Ms. Mihychuk: Can the minister tell us what projects were funded out of the Mining Reserve Fund?
Mr. Newman: I can give you right now the payments out of the fund made in 1997-98 as at October 31, 1997. I can update that to March 31 of this year. I have been given another listing which is more current, and the project, on account of the Sherridon tailings initiative, the cleanup was $1,975. The education support levy for the Ruttan Mine agreement was $117,957.45. That is the Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Company Limited arrangement that has been ongoing since the New Democratic government of the past negotiated that arrangement. Support for the Prospectors Assistance Program, $99,261.50. Another item with respect to addressing the Sherridon tailings issue, $39,706.43, for a total of $258,900.38.
Ms. Mihychuk: Have monies been withdrawn from the Mining Reserve Fund to cover MEAP advances or grants?
Mr. Newman: No. The process that was used to fund MEAP was to have funds moved from the Mining Reserve that exceeded the $5-million cap into the Consolidated Fund. Those funds were then used to finance MEAP. So the way it was handled was to, in effect, deem, if you will, a surplus to the fund and then use it for the purposes of MEAP.
Ms. Mihychuk: Can the minister indicate what he considers a surplus to the fund, and was all of the money then transferred out of that to general or consolidated revenue?
Mr. Newman: No. The current minimum value of the fund is $5 million. As you indicated in your opening statement, we have legislation which I know you support to increase the level to at least $10 million, the minimum level. You have indicated you would like it even larger than that and I have taken notice of that.
Ms. Mihychuk: What was the amount in the reserve fund in 1996-97?
Mr. Newman: Maybe I could be helpful by giving you what the opening balance was April 1, 1997. It was $19,458,231.86. There was revenue generated, again, from April 1 to March 31, 1998, in the amount $685,474.86, less the payments that I have already referred to, of $258,900.38, for a closing balance on March 31, 1998, of $19,884,806.34. Of that, committed to projects, some of which I outlined in their total, is $4,366,141.13, for a noncommitted balance of $15,518,665.21.
Again, to be helpful, one of the committed items that I did not refer to, because nothing has been paid out of it, is a commitment of $260,000 for an economic development officer in the Local Government District of Lynn Lake.
Ms. Mihychuk: Well, I think that it would be reasonable, given the numbers the minister has provided, to basically say that the Mining Reserve Fund has been used to cover the cost of the MEAP program to the tune of $4 million. I would ask the minister if he views the MEAP projects, the exploration projects, as being in compliance with the mission or the goal of the Mining Reserve Fund.
Mr. Newman: Again, to be factual, the transfer to general revenue, the total committed from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) was $6 million. The transfers, or the amount paid for MEAP, was $1,292,556. We do not yet have the 1997-98 figures of payouts, so the MEAP transferred amounts are external to the uncommitted balance of $15,518,665.21.
Ms. Mihychuk: If I understand the minister correctly, he just indicated that $6 million was taken out of the Mining Reserve Fund. Can the minister explain why the government felt it was valuable and necessary to put that money into the Mining Reserve Fund, and now, during the last budget, or the year previously, has decided that it is appropriate to take $6 million out of the Mining Reserve Fund?
* (1520)
Mr. Newman: I do not want to play with words. The fact is that the act presumed to protect or intended to protect at least $5 million from any uses other than those stipulated in the statute. It is arguable that utilizing the funds for the MEAP program is consistent with the listed intent but, because that argument was not advanced and there was not any desire to nitpick, the investment stood on its own merits out of general funds by moving what was considered the excess out of the Mining Reserves minimum into general revenue kinds of decisions. Based on what I have heard from the industry, based on results which are apparent, the use of MEAP dollars has been a very useful and important investment in the development of mining and the generation of exploration activity and therefore revenue to employees, entrepreneurs, and so forth, and suppliers in the province of Manitoba.
With respect to the legislation, which is going to increase the limits to the $10 million, the minimum to $10 million, in the new legislation, I indicated last year, and I listen again this year as to your position about having a right to encroach on the Mining Reserve to do MEAP program, and I am getting the message that your position is that that right is something that you feel should not be there. That would then mean the $10 million would be protected against use for this purpose.
I have indicated to you last year and I indicate to you this year that if you want to have that fund protected in those ways, and the industry agrees with that and generally the communities think that is a better way to go, I have indicated that I am prepared to give serious consideration to that, because all of this is designed to really be a community decision, an industry decision, and designed to fulfill the intent of the legislation to the maximum.
Ms. Mihychuk: Is the intent of the government to withdraw again in this fiscal year money out of the Mining Reserve Fund and to what extent?
Mr. Newman: So we can make sure we understand and the public understands this. The question that I am responding to is whether or not monies will be spent on MEAP this year in addition to the $1,292,556 already paid out. The answer to that is yes. Exactly to what amount is not known at this time.
Ms. Mihychuk: Is there the intent by the government to withdraw funds in addition to the money needed to supplement the MEAP program? I understand that last year some of it went into the general revenues. Is that the intent again in the future?
Mr. Newman: Just so we make clear. I have treated the $6 million transferred to general revenue for the purposes of an informed conversation between you and I as being committed dollars out of the Mining Community Reserve. So that is in addition to what is a noncommitted balance of $15,518,665.21.
Ms. Mihychuk: Does the minister see the balance of the money in the reserve fund falling below $15 million?
Mr. Newman: That would depend on how aggressively and successfully and consistent with the intent of the legislation applicants to the Mining Community Reserve make cases for funds to be advanced. For example, the Local Government District of Lynn Lake, through their mayor, put through a very persuasive case over the past year which has resulted in a multiyear investment commitment subject to certain performance measures of $260,000. I am directly, and through my staff and through you and through this process, encouraging applications from communities that are victims of the suspension or discontinuation of mining operations, encouraging creativity and encouraging real efforts to build a healthy sustainable economy not dependent on mining to the greatest extent possible.
Ms. Mihychuk: If I understand correctly, in 1997, $244,000 was taken from mining taxes and put into the Mining Reserve Fund to supplement the fund. Is that correct?
Mr. Newman: That is correct.
Ms. Mihychuk: In 1998, an estimate must have been made for the '98-99 year as to the government's commitment to the Mining Reserve Fund. Is the minister prepared to share what we anticipate will be going into the Mining Reserve Fund?
* (1530)
Mr. Newman: I can give you some figures again that might be helpful, not directly responsive to your question, but the magnitude of mining taxes which in the discretion of the Minister of Finance, the government of the day, has been transferred out of mining taxes into the fund from 1970-71, March 31 fiscal year, through March 31, 1997, is $15,744,541. The total interest earned on that principal amount, if you will, in its various incremental forms over the years is $15,210,935 for the period 1970-71 fiscal year through March 31, 1998.
Ms. Mihychuk: Is the MEAP program dependent on monies available in the Mining Reserve Fund?
Mr. Newman: I would put it another way. It is a portion of mining taxes which have been earned which have initially found their way into the Mining Community Reserve Fund and then have been moved out of that fund, the total committed amount of $6 million, and then, once in the general revenue, utilized for MEAP purposes.
Ms. Mihychuk: Given that the balance in the Mining Reserve Fund now is $15.5 million approximately, is the continuance of the MEAP program dependent on the balance available in the Mining Reserve Fund? For instance, is there a base level? If the Mining Reserve Fund is tapped to the point of $10 million, which will be our new minimum, will that mean the ultimate end of the MEAP program, or is there a direct relationship like that for the funding of the MEAP program?
Mr. Newman: We are, at this very time, in the process of doing a final evaluation of the MEAP program. We have input from industry, and the department will be making recommendations regarding the continuation and modification of the program in the next month or so, I think, before the end of May, is it not? Before the end of May 1998. Part of that review will include a consideration of whether the Mining Community Reserve Fund should or should not continue to offset additional expenditures for MEAP. So this discussion is relevant and helpful, as is input from the community.
I frankly do hope that the legislation we are putting forward might generate some discussion, which I invite. I am open to making modifications to that legislation, as I say, to work in the public interest to the advantage of the affected communities and mining development in the province which is designed to benefit all communities, particularly in the North of Manitoba, who derive benefits from successful mining in or around them.
Ms. Mihychuk: Well, I guess my interpretation of the Mining Reserve Fund, it is more limited, that the purpose was to provide a cushion or a fund that would be there for those workers and the community that is going to be directly impacted by mine closure or a shutdown for a while. So that is a point of deviation, and we have been there, so I do not wish to go over that. We will have an opportunity during our legislative debate. I see that the minister wishes to respond to that before we move on.
Mr. Newman: Before we do move on, and thanks for your indulgence in allowing me to make a comment, but I would like to put on the record what my position is so that in your constituency--I see the honourable member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen) here now--and in your responsibility as critic, responsible for all the--certainly the New-Democratic-Party-represented constituencies that wish to represent views that can get the best from this minister and this government.
I may or may not be of a different point of view than you, and maybe a different approach, but whereas there is no question that the Mining Reserve is there to be there in a time of crisis to address major negative impacts of a closing, I repeat and expand on some of my earlier thoughts which are that proactive steps, creative steps to be less dependent on mining may offer a longer solution and healthier, more sustainable communities. Every time I meet with people from the North who are focusing on long-term health and sustainability, they make that point to me, and I just listen, but to make that even very, very clear, knowing that many mines have identifiable minimum lifetimes--and I have encouraged communities to look at them in many cases as bonuses--it is very helpful to have another reason for existing and have a long-term vision that perhaps excludes mining as a portion of it.
* (1540)
If effectively a heritage fund or foundation could be created out of what is a bonus, a windfall by communities, that is something that could helpfully ensure a long-term healthy and sustainable future for communities. So that kind of approach I am, rightly or wrongly, actively encouraging because I am getting the message that that is the desire in community-driven ways now, and it is causing a certain amount of, I think, positive, exciting activities in communities like Flin Flon, Snow Lake, Leaf Rapids that have been exposed to the recent possibility that Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting might discontinue its operations.
So that is where many of the most positive, creative ideas are coming. Lynn Lake is another recent community that, as I have already indicated, has been invested in out of the Community Reserve Fund.
Ms. Mihychuk: I thank the minister. I have with me a colleague who represents Flin Flon. I am wondering if it would be appropriate to ask some general comments in terms of the area that he represents, and I look for some discretion here, rather than waiting maybe until the Mines department and hope that we can indulge some time for him.
Mr. Chairperson: I would like to advise the members of the committee that the correct procedure for considering items in the Committee of Supply is in the line-by-line manner, and in order to skip ahead or revert back to lines already passed, unanimous consent of the committee is required. Now, I have allowed some latitude with the questioning that has been going on, but I have been tempted to interrupt the proceedings and the questioning with regard to this.
We are on line 23.1.(b)(2) Other Expenditures $75,500, and if there are any other questions pertaining to that, then I would certainly entertain any questions. If there are not, then maybe we might consider passing that and then go on to seeking unanimous consent, if there is some area of the Estimates order that we wanted to address out of turn. What is the wish of the committee?
Ms. Mihychuk: I look for clarification. I have another colleague who represents the community of Thompson who also wishes to have an opportunity to discuss the situation there for Inco. Unfortunately, he is not able to be here at the present time which leads us into a dilemma because we do--if we moved into the Mines Branch, would we be obligated to then complete that whole section, or we could move through the two of them and revert back into that area.
Mr. Chairperson: Just for the benefit of the committee, as long as there is unanimous consent of the committee to revert back or to move forward, certainly that is all right by the Chair. That is acceptable, and I guess in light of what we are looking at here, if there is anything that we can move in being accommodating, to pass any items, certainly with the wishes of the committee, the Chair will be somewhat lenient in respect to that, to entertaining, moving back after a line has been passed. So I just offer that, you know, subject to the committee's approval.
Ms. Mihychuk: I have no problem with that. The section under 23.1.(a) Minister's Salary and 23.1.(b), I believe is where we are, under Executive Support, I use it as an opportunity to look at broad-based policy issues, and I have completed that section as far as I need to. We will have other opportunities to go into more detail, so I am prepared to pass that section.
Mr. Chairperson: Just for clarification, we are on 23.1. Administration and Finance (b) Executive Support (2) Other Expenditures. Is there willingness of the committee to pass that portion of the Estimates?
An Honourable Member: Pass.
Mr. Chairperson: Item 23.1.(b)(2) Other Expenditures $75,500--pass.
Item 23.1.(c) Financial and Administrative Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $622,500.
Ms. Mihychuk: I would ask for unanimous approval to move to the Mines Branch where we could have discussions on Flin Flon and Hudson Bay Smelting.
Mr. Chairperson: Is there unanimous consent to move to section 23.2. Energy and Mineral Resources (c) Mines (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,370,900? Is there unanimous consent to move to that portion? [agreed]
Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): I realize I inconvenienced the proceedings somewhat, but I am very glad you allowed me a chance to ask a few questions. I promise to be fairly brief.
First of all, I am very happy to see that the town of Lynn Lake is getting some money out of the Mining Reserve Fund to help with its municipal costs. That is certainly a very positive direction, and I am very happy to see that. I want to thank the minister on behalf of the people of Lynn Lake.
The concern, of course, I have is other mining communities, one-industry towns that have their ups and downs, as we saw in Snow Lake. They were down and out early 1990s and now doing very well; Bissett, down and out and, hopefully, doing well now; Lynn Lake is certainly still in some tough times. But the community that concerns me very much at this moment is Leaf Rapids because it appears that, from what HBM&S spokesmen are telling me at any rate, by 2003 that orebody will be exhausted for all their purposes, and that would mean that the main reason for that town to exist would appear to be gone. I am just asking the minister; in the past we have worked out some arrangements to stave off that disaster. I am fully aware, you know, that at some point in time the mining reserves will disappear in any given area, but in the case of Leaf Rapids, particularly, when 2003 hits, are there any plans in place, any funding in place to help tide that community over, to cushion that community, specifically from the Mining Reserve Fund?
Mr. Newman: This is a very timely question, and your analysis coincides with what my staff have advised me. Efforts have been made by Geological Services staff to help determine other opportunities, but, predictably, if the information we get from HBM&S turns out to be valid, the life of that particular operation, that particular mine will conclude by 2003, approximately.
This is the kind of proactive time when I would hope, encourage you, encourage Lynn Lake--I am sorry, encourage Leaf Rapids community members, many of whom I have met and are very capable people, to look to applying to the Mining Reserve to help them develop an alternative to mining and have it in readiness, in operation for that very real probability.
We, in terms of philosophy, will respond to community-driven approaches, which, in terms of philosophy, in all my responsibilities, I favour. We encourage, we facilitate and that is what we do through my remarks now and through you and the official opposition critic--transmit, communicate to the people in Leaf Rapids and vicinity.
Mr. Jennissen: I thank the minister for the answer. One of the concerns I have, of course, is that not only for the sake of the community itself, but I am thinking of the Sherridon line that we managed to pull out of the fire. When I say we, a lot of players, stakeholders and certainly northerners were involved in making sure that line remained viable. Now, if the material sent out by Ruttan no longer travels from Lynn Lake south to the smelter, that may indeed jeopardize that line. I am just guessing. I hope it does not, but if that happens then that would jeopardize the people in Pukatawagan, perhaps even, you know, the Tolko operation. It is like a domino. If one key domino falls, it could affect a lot of others. That concerns me a great deal. That is not just maybe hardship for Leaf Rapids, but it would have some tremendous negative spinoffs in other directions as well. I wonder if the minister would comment on that.
Mr. Newman: When a program, an idea emerges from a community or there is a desire to involve the provincial government through any one of several different departments in helping develop a future in comprehensive ways, the Department of Rural Development will characteristically assume the lead, as they have done in Lynn Lake, for example, with respect to the funding of the economic development officer over time, and if it is a bigger picture issue involving a number of departments of government and there is a plan or an approach which would attract the talents and experience of the Economic Development Board Secretariat, they would become involved.
I would invite, again, the community through its various leaders to come forward. I know that I recently met with the Community Futures people from your area of Flin Flon. I met with the Greenstone Community Futures people sharing this kind of information with them, and I am willing to do that at any time, if not to directly assist, to certainly facilitate through staff and work in conjunction with you as the MLA, to try and co-ordinate a multidepartmental effort to address the challenge of, as I say, a probable closing with all its implications.
* (1550)
As I say, I find this a useful process to invite that, but I do not want to impose a government-driven initiative. I want it to be community driven, but I share your concerns about their future. They should be collaborating. They should be looking at the big picture, and I am very pleased to facilitate that on their behalf. As I say, in all my conversations I let them know that.
You should know that approximately 10.2 percent, according to my staff's calculation, of MEAP money has been spent in the Lynn Lake-Leaf Rapids area since the beginning of MEAP in 1995-96.
Mr. Jennissen: Mr. Chair, I attended the last mining convention, as I always try to do, and I was very enlightened with some of the presentations, particularly the exploration initiatives. But in reference to what the minister just said, spending 10 percent of MEAP money in that area still seems terribly low, because obviously there is a major community at risk. I know Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting is doing considerable exploration in that area, as well, but considering that that is a community at risk, should we not be spending a lot more money in that area, in the Greenstone area, in the area where the threatened community actually is?
I know a lot of effort and energy is going in further to the east and the north, but even if there is a major find, you are still a heck of a long ways away from a major existing community, as far as I know.
Mr. Newman: As you know, MEAP reacts, responds to applications, so the interest is really demonstrated by the experts, the explorers and the mining--the explorationists out there who are taking the risk of investing a majority of their money or publicly subscribed money.
If what you are suggesting is we should have an additional incentive to explore in known areas rather than in the unknown areas like the Northern Superior, I have answered that question on a number of different occasions, and the position of the department at this time is that the rationale for the additional amount is--rather than redressing, in effect, failing situations, the inducement is to encourage investment in areas which have impediments to explorationists going in there unless they are lured into it.
The kinds of impediments that I understand exist in the Northern Superior include the large overburden, the lack of infrastructure accessibility and simply the newness of it. Even the geological data is not as complete in that area as in what are the very well-known areas in the Flin Flon, Lynn Lake, Leaf Rapids, Snow Lake kinds of areas. There is not a whole bunch of difficulty in attracting investment in those areas because of a lack of knowledge. So I have concluded that it would not even be likely to attract more, and if it did attract more, it would not necessarily be in the best interests, one, of getting the big find, which I have said could make a big difference, and secondly, a big difference in terms of the attractiveness is Manitoba as a place to invest, to attract attention, attract the excitement, romance, but it may be using MEAP in ways that I have indicated that I do not support, and that is rather than making up for a negative view of the mining environment in the province, it would be closer to the kind of handout designed to partner with the people who know the underground well, know the area well. So for those two reasons, it would just be inconsistent with the philosophy which so far has driven MEAP.
I indicated yesterday that I take the approach that MEAP, once it has accomplished its goal of restoring the positive good will in this province, I am not inclined to be supportive of that as the best way to spend money. I would then tend to emphasize spending it more on geological data and that kind of thing.
To give you some specifics, the breakdown of the expenditure of MEAP dollars by region really supports the natural continued attractiveness--in spite of the extra inducement to invest in Northern Superior--the natural attraction of the Flin Flon, Snow Lake, Thompson nickel belt, and even Lynn Lake, Leaf Rapids areas. The breakdown of the areas of Northern Superior, 12.2 percent; Flin Flon/Snow Lake, 34.6 percent; Lynn Lake/Leaf Rapids, 10.2 percent; Thompson nickel belt, 24.4 percent, is quite instructive, I think.
Mr. Jennissen: Perhaps I did not understand it quite clearly. Is the minister referring to MEAP expenditures percentage?
Mr. Newman: Yes.
Mr. Jennissen: What would that look like if we talked in terms of the department's own expertise in staff and geological crews and surveys and so on? What percentage would be devoted to this at-risk area?
* (1600)
Mr. Newman: The Geological Services Branch's allocations for field activity expenditures are: Northern Superior, 37.5 percent; next largest, Flin Flon, 22.6 percent; Thompson, 20.6 percent; Lynn Lake, 0.5 percent. My comment, in addition to those facts, would be that we have a concerted effort which is consistent with the industry desire, request to have us provide more information for the lesser-known areas.
Once again, I can share with you that anecdotally in my meetings with mining explorationists, on an international basis many of them, over the many, many decades, have had very considerable experience with the Flin Flon, Lynn Lake, Snow Lake, Leaf Rapids kinds of areas. So in my conversations with them I can almost picture their minds being able to see what the underground looks like, but they do not have that same appreciation for the Northern Superior. Of course, there are vast areas there that have not received the attention that the other areas have, and we are hoping that what can emerge there will be another Flin Flon, another Thompson, another Lynn Lake and Leaf Rapids, for example.
Mr. David Faurschou, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair
Mr. Jennissen: That is actually a very good point the minister makes, but some of the experts suggest that that will never happen again, that mining is now in such a phase, a technological phase that mining will never require huge communities even if there is a large find. I do not know if that is true or not, that is just what some of the people tell me.
I am just wondering if that is indeed the direction of the future, where it is no longer going to be labour intensive--it is kind of speculative, I realize that--but highly reliant on technology. If that is the case, then maybe even future big finds in fairly remote areas may not necessarily lead to communities anymore, maybe some flying in and flying out stuff, but the kind of Thompsons and the Leaf Rapids and the Flin Flons may be something of the past according to some mining experts. I really do not know. I wish someone could give me a more definitive response to that.
Mr. Newman: This would be a very useful exercise to discuss with people in the industry, particularly suppliers of all the new technology and the explorationist kind of equipment that can do things that were never dreamed of before. So, I mean, if that is not the case, that is, if it is not necessary or it simply does not happen that a major new community emerges, it will depend on the creativity, the ingenuity, the diligence of any northern communities that are nearby to put forward an approach to doing mining which will make the costs of doing that mining, doing exploration, world competitive. That seems to be the way of the future. Whether it is Northern Affairs communities, whether it is First Nations communities of the North, whether it is Thompson, Flin Flon, whatever is now an existing centre with an infrastructure, and therefore competencies and natural advantage which they can capitalize on to the benefit of, as I say, more cost-effective mining and exploration, it will be a win-win.
I have heard many times major mining companies in this jurisdiction and others talk about if they have reasoned and helpful well-trained supportive communities, First Nations communities, Northern Affairs communities, urban industrial communities, which want to work with them and provide them services, they will take advantage of that because you cannot overcome extra costs of transportation from a major distance.
So there are many, many opportunities without, say, building a new city or a new town, many opportunities for communities that just have to be more proximate to exploration and development, and that is reflected now in the participation of First Nations in doing work for even junior exploration companies, Northern Affairs communities, the greatest extent possible trying to look at it in ways that they can be of service to mines in urban industrial communities having a developed infrastructure, trained people, a much higher percentage of high school and university graduates than surrounding areas.
I think there will be positive benefits no matter what form new mining takes for them--and why should they not be?--with their knowledge of the North and so forth, the creators of the best ideas and the generators of the most cost-effective solutions. Their local knowledge can also help. So I think it can be very much a win-win, and the future will be to their benefit more or less depending on how they approach it.
Mr. Jennissen: I guess part of it is we also have to look for a balance. Certainly, I am very much in favour of exploring newer areas, hoping to find that mother lode of all mother lodes. I hear many a prospector from Bissett to Sherridon talking about that kind of stuff, and certainly we want to move into those areas that have been less explored. But at the same time, I think, there has to be the balance of existing communities that have to be protected, perhaps treated with some kind of a cherished status. I do not know if you would call it mollycoddling or not, but you maybe need some special kind of treatment.
I do know that if infrastructure keeps deteriorating or, you know, is removed--we are talking about housing or town centres or roads or railroads, whatever--then you reach the point of no return, and Northerners complain enough about PR 391. Lord knows what is going to happen if there is no Leaf Rapids or a very small Leaf Rapids. We are having trouble getting a dime now, we are going to have trouble getting a nickel later on. That is certainly one of the concerns that I have in that whole region and would be somewhat at risk.
* (1610)
There are many people not directly involved with mining, or perhaps retired miners, who do not wish to leave that region. I hope a lot more effort will be put into place to diversify. I do not know to what degree we can use the Mining Reserve Fund for creative initiatives to diversify, like some of the people perhaps have simplistic directions or answers for this problem. I know there is one gentleman in Flin Flon that delights to tell me, look, there is not a problem here. If HBM&S should leave and we are out 2,000 jobs, all we have to do is find 10 more areas that each create 200 jobs.
But, you know, I have a heck of a time finding 10 areas where we can employ 200 people. In the case of Leaf Rapids, well, there are not nearly that many people employed, but certainly I would like to see that very creative town survive and survive well, particularly, in light of the fact that the government pushes tourism a lot. I know Europeans and Japanese people and a lot of people that come into Manitoba would like to go up North, and part of what prohibits them from doing so is the nature of that road. So, yes, I would hope that there would be some creative ways or some access to money, perhaps via the Mining Reserve Fund, that would stabilize places like Leaf Rapids.
Mr. Newman: It may be that there is some difference in terms of the philosophy of the official opposition and the government that I am part of in terms of the approach it would take to community development. I have indicated, perhaps before you arrived here today, to the official opposition critic that the approach that my department takes consistent with the government policy is to have to the greatest extent possible community-driven, community-based kinds of initiatives and solutions to which we will respond collaboratively and in facilitative ways.
One thing that is inconsistent with the philosophy that drives this department through this minister is that you do not want to perpetuate something that all market forces and all indicators show will not have a future walking a certain path. The best way to ensure a future is for a community to have a long-term vision which they are committed to and they are working towards and they are excited about. If they do not have it, no matter what support is given, it will simply be temporary transitional funding which really is not as well invested as it could be if there were a positive vision instead.
There are many of the communities of the North and elsewhere--gosh, in southern Manitoba--that have lost their original reason for being, and they have not rediscovered a new one, sometimes simply cease to exist as anything but a retirement community or whatever.
The people of the North who are representative of self-reliance and have a capacity for self-sufficiency that sometimes is superior to anywhere else in the province have enormous resources at their disposal which may or may not involve mining at all. We encourage them all to identify what their assets are, what their strengths are, what their weaknesses are and develop a long-term vision.
The Department of Rural Development plays a role in that. The Round Table on Environment and Economy through sustainable development policies that have emerged out of that and are within government address that. The Economic Development Board Secretariat addresses that, and to the extent that the Mining Community Reserve Fund can be used as a funder, it is a fund of a kind which is not available in other departments.
So there is, in effect, an opportunity for those communities to access funding through a proven plan that can help them move toward that vision I am talking about and a sustainable future.
Mr. Jennissen: If I understand the minister correctly then, a plan such as the one set out or the vision set out by the Grass River Tourism Corridor Inc. people which is rather ambitious and far-reaching and does encompass a large section of the North would be able to access funds from the Mining Reserve Fund, because certainly they are having trouble getting necessary funds from I, T and T. These are the people pushing ecotourism, doing research on the history of the area, I think tremendous potential there, and they are a little bit frustrated with the lack of funding. Could those people possibly access some of the funds from the Mining Reserve Fund?
Mr. Newman: The simply answer is yes. The broader answer is that any application will be considered on its own merits. I have indicated how I am challenging the people of the North that are in these situations to be as creative as possible to contribute to their being healthy, sustainable communities, and my own sympathies, my own inclination for support would be precisely for those kinds of creative ideas.
Mr. Jennissen: I would like to switch now to the Flin Flon region directly. Flin Flon is the second largest mining community in Manitoba. Certainly, we did go through some very scary moments in the last several months about whether or not that region would have a future. I think we all tried to be as circumspect--like we walked on eggshells. We did not want to jeopardize any negotiation process between unions and HBM&S and so on. I gather at this stage that 2012 will be a go. At least, certainly, all of us in the North are hoping that that will be the case.
I do not know if there is any privileged or confidential information on this, but just in general terms I wonder if the minister would be willing to comment about the government's role in expediting that process. Certainly, we want 2012 to succeed for everybody's sake.
Mr. Newman: So you will understand the process that HBM&S followed in relation to the province, they wanted support of the province for their 2012 initiative, and I, personally, and my staff and other departments of government and the Economic Development Board have all had presentations made by HBM&S.
As a result of that process, we have communicated to the company officials a response as to where we stand as a government in relation to a number of aspects of their Project 2012. We had them do the quantifying of the benefit to them, so that we were not in, you know, our calculations-your calculations dialogue, and they have been very forthright and very co-operative in working through this.
The items we have communicated back to them are the identifiable new mines that have potential. In this business, as you can appreciate, a new mine having potential for realization often means are they going to invest blank millions of dollars in something and so forth. But in their plan, which you probably have seen and the community has seen, they were hypothesizing that there are two new mines there. Given the new mines that they have described, or the potential mines they have described, we look at new mine status using their figures as having $11.4-million benefit to the company through 2012.
* (1620)
We have indicated that that new mine status in the circumstances outlined would be forthcoming. New investment tax credit for the two new mines would, using their figures, be $9.2 million benefits to 2012. New investment credit, a zinc plant expansion has been valued by them as $4.2 million. The budgetary changes which are not custom tailored for HBM&S, but do benefit them, would have a value to 2012 of $1.3 million. The motive fuel tax exemption through 2012 would have a benefit of $6.6 million for a total of $32.7 million, in effect, being contributed by the taxpayers of the province of Manitoba, based on their figures to 2012.
I am reluctant to deal with in any detail two other items which are under consideration which we have not yet formally communicated to HBM&S and we continue to discuss with them, so I would appreciate, for HBM&S' sake and the communities out there as well as us, be sensitive to the fact that they would involve a certain amount of confidentiality and I would prefer not to discuss this at this time. But other than that, that is where we stand in the process of addressing the 2012 issue.
Mr. Jennissen: Just basically one last little question. The two mines referred to are Chisel north then and 777? [interjection]
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Faurschou): I might just recognize the member for Flin Flon first, prior to his question being posed, please.
Mr. Jennissen: I am sorry, Mr. Chair. I was just, for clarification, the two mines then are Chisel north and 777?
Mr. Newman: Those are the names that have been shared with us as being names of those two identified potential mines, yes.
Mr. Jennissen: I thank the minister for indulging me to let me ask some questions. [interjection] Sorry for jumping the gun here; a little edgy in the North lately. I want to thank the minister for answering the questions that are certainly very relevant to the communities that I represent up there, and I would like to turn it back to the real expert here, my critic in Energy and Mines.
Ms. Mihychuk: I would like to suggest that we go back to the order of Estimates according to the outline in the book, and we can move along through the department, I think, with a deal more haste than has been. Since my questions have been broad ranging and there has been a degree of latitude by the Chair, many of the policy questions have been answered, and I would like to go through the department according to the Estimates book. The next one I understand is Administration and Finance.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Faurschou): Financial and Administrative Services 23.1.(c). Is it the unanimous consent of the committee members to revert back to item 1.(c) Financial and Administrative Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits? There is. [agreed]
Ms. Mihychuk: This is the area that I believe held or is responsible for the computer services. Is that correct?
Mr. Newman: Yes.
Ms. Mihychuk: It is my understanding that the three computer people that are with the department will be maintained after the Systemhouse project is enacted in full. Can I ask what type of supports they will be providing?
Mr. Newman: Systems design and programming.
Ms. Mihychuk: So the three individuals will be maintained, and then there will be a service contract with Systemhouse. That contract will be worth what amount? I understand there may be a first year to capitalize or get into the program, and then we anticipate an ongoing service contract with Systemhouse. Can the minister give us a detail of that so that there would be a--can the minister provide the salary for the three individuals that would be part of the computer support that the department is going to have? The rest is Systemhouse. So if I could have an outline of the two components for computer supports the department will be maintaining.
Mr. Newman: The salaries of the three staff, that is, manager and two computer programmers, will total $174,500.
Ms. Mihychuk: That includes--just for clarification, I am sorry my mind had moved onto the activity identification for the branch--was 174. That includes the service contract for Systemhouse as well as the three?
Mr. Newman: No, I thought you had asked for the salaries of the three. That is the salaries of the three, $174,500.
* (1630)
Ms. Mihychuk: Can the minister now provide what we would expect the service contract, after we adopt the Systemhouse program, to be on an annual basis?
Mr. Newman: The net full year costs, which I gave you yesterday, would be $279,176, and the content of the services provided pursuant to the Systemhouse contract relates to desktop management which encompasses all tasks associated with buying, installing, configuring, maintaining, and using personal computer hardware and software. It also includes training support and selected software programs, telephone support, and deskside support. The support services are specifically designed to help employees resolve issues quickly, regardless of whether the problem is software- or hardware-related, and the desktop management contract also provides for maintenance and support of all personal computer networks and associated printers.
Ms. Mihychuk: Will the minister provide the contract fee, the service fee, that we pay to Systemhouse for their trouble-shooting work that we now contract out? So, on an hourly basis, if we need to get Systemhouse to come in to provide support, what would be the hourly rate paid by the department?
Mr. Newman: The charges are on a per unit basis, not on an hourly basis, and the charge is $2,600 per year per unit, and there are 150 units.
Ms. Mihychuk: It is my understanding that the department at the present time has not been included in the desktop project as yet. Right now, as government policy or procedure, we are moving towards it, I understand that. But at the present time, we have departmental units and we obtain trouble-shooting expertise to the tune of $35,000, approximately, and that is on an as-needed basis. Is that correct?
Mr. Newman: The answer to the question is that the service provided by Systemhouse is anticipated to be, and, in fact, it is now being provided and currently is a better quality, more comprehensive, longer hour 24-hour-a-day service. As I outlined yesterday, the trouble-shooter function performed by an employee previously was not serving the needs of the department to the degree of effectiveness which this new opportunity provides.
Ms. Mihychuk: I refer back to yesterday's Hansard, and I did ask if the department was receiving services presently from Systemhouse. Even though we had not moved into getting all the new units and part of the whole deal, it was my understanding that we receive supports from Systemhouse. That indeed were the numbers indicated in the Estimates, through pages 21, 25, 27, 29, 31 and so on, identifying a certain cost for the Systemhouse services provided, so presumably this is related to the service they provide. Is that on an as-needed basis until we adopt the full desktop program?
Mr. Newman: Yes.
Ms. Mihychuk: It is also my understanding that that amount then relates to the amount of service they provide. How many hours of service has Systemhouse provided to the department?
Mr. Newman: I am advised that we do not have that information handy or put together, but it could be done if that is your request.
Ms. Mihychuk: The amounts that are identified in the Estimates are for anticipated service calls. Is that correct?
Mr. Newman: As I thought, it was made clear yesterday, we are in a transition, so they are providing support under the existing hardware and transitioning into the new desktop hardware and software, and they are providing support for both. They will then provide full service on that higher quality 24-hour-a-day basis for the desktop system when the transition is over.
Ms. Mihychuk: How long has the department been accessing Systemhouse to provide for this trouble-shooting?
Mr. Newman: My information is that that was in November of 1997.
Ms. Mihychuk: I would be interested, and I will take up the minister on his offer, to see the number of calls that were placed by the department to Systemhouse. Of course, that relates to the anticipated supports that we will be using from Systemhouse. It looks like the department was able to sustain itself with four salaried individuals for approximately $200,000. The Systemhouse contract and the additional employees that we are going to keep on total $453,000, so it is again just to complete our assessment of whether we are getting good value for our money, how much support we are going to be getting from Systemhouse for the department. So I do appreciate the minister's response that that information will be provided.
I am going to provide the minister an opportunity to respond to that. I am prepared to move on to another area.
Mr. Newman: You have now made the request to provide that information. We will provide that information to the best of our ability.
* (1640)
Ms. Mihychuk: In the areas of personnel, can the minister report on the goals in terms of affirmative action? We did talk a little bit about the aboriginal targets that were set, but in the other sectors, can we have a report?
Mr. Newman: The employment equity workforce analysis reveals that with respect to women, the long-term objective to the year 2006 is 50 percent. The start point of the process of analysis was March 1993, and the percentage at that time was 41.72 percent. The percentage as of March 1998 is 47.83 percent.
Aboriginal long-term objective, year 2006, is currently 10 percent. The March 1993 percentage was 3.31 percent. The March 1998 percent is 5.80 percent.
With respect to disabled, the long-term objective, year 2006, is currently 7 percent. The March 1993 percent was 2.65 percent. The March 1998 percent is 3.62 percent.
The visible minority long-term objective, year 2006, 6 percent. March 1993 was 3.31 percent. March 1998 is 3.62 percent.
Ms. Mihychuk: Has consideration been given to changing the aboriginal target, based on the population involved in the mining community? The 10 percent is, I believe, within the range of the overall population of Manitoba, but when we look at the mining community, the majority of mines occur in the north, the aboriginal population is significantly higher, and I would argue or look for that discussion that that target be, in fact, increased.
Mr. Newman: When we achieve the target of 10 percent, hopefully before 2006, the department would like to move that percentage higher to better reflect the aboriginal population percentage in the province.
Ms. Mihychuk: Does the department have any plans to increase its aboriginal workforce within the department by providing training or education programs?
Mr. Newman: Based on response to a department employment equity questionnaire, an aboriginal cultural awareness session is being planned for departmental staff. The department's employment equity plan incorporates department-wide objectives and also individual branch plans and commitments. Examples of branch commitments include management and technical development for internal staff, exploring opportunities to second or employ geological assistance from First Nations communities to work with senior geologists in field camps, participating in university mentorship programs and career symposia, and providing work experience placements for volunteers, trainees, et cetera.
Ms. Mihychuk: Can the minister tell us how many aboriginal people are presently enrolled in geology at the university or geological sciences at the university who potentially would come into the professional sector for the department?
Mr. Newman: We not only do not have that information, but we sought that information from the university and could not get it.
* (1650)
Ms. Mihychuk: This is an area that I think needs enhancement. I do not think that Manitoba has been particularly proactive in providing opportunities for First Nations people to access universities and secondary education, particularly in the mining sector. Again, we are looking to a goal, which I think the minister and I agree on, to getting aboriginals involved in a meaningful way in the mining industry. One of those examples is working for the department, and they are often the lead role in exploration and meeting with industry and being out in the communities. So opportunities, I think, need to be developed. We have not been successful in having those opportunities fall into our lap. We are going to, it seems to me, take certain initiatives to recruit young people into the field of geology, and I think it is going to have to be more than providing opportunities for field season.
Mr. Chairperson in the Chair
I have a personal story I would like to relate. In the summer when I was in Snow Lake, I had an opportunity to take a Red River Community College student with me, but the individual had, I think a Grade 9, had dropped out of school in Grade 9, Grade 10, and although he saw it as a career that he would love to get into, the idea that he would have to complete his high school and then go to university and then perhaps get a master's degree to become a geologist seemed impossible for the individual who was financially strapped and, unfortunately, had curtailed his education. So he was employed--it was actually a training program or an opportunity from Red River to provide that experience. I think that individual needs the supports of a program like Access, that indeed Access, I believe, provided opportunities in the engineering field, but maybe needs to be expanded to include mining so that individuals can be given the opportunity to get into that sector and provide a meaningful role.
So I look forward to the minister's comments and initiatives, and perhaps we could look to seeking our First Nations elders and leaders as to their ideas for providing opportunities or getting their young people involved in mining. Perhaps we can have a more comprehensive program which does develop opportunities for First Nations people.
Mr. Newman: I am not beyond examining any realistic approaches to stimulating interest, providing encouragement, and doing whatever is reasonable and responsible to get more aboriginal people involved in geology and other kinds of fields that are going to result in greater aboriginal involvement in the career in mining and related fields.
A couple of things that are not apparent from the statistics, but I personally, together with Native Affairs Secretariat staff and I cannot recall who else attended at Brandon University, drove out on a Saturday and met with the president and others, including the head of Geology out there, with a view to encouraging them to get more involved in the whole process of getting more aboriginal students involved in geology. It was a very productive day and they were very interested as a university that has a very substantial aboriginal student population.
Also, we had a couple of people involved in the department participate, in the interests of improving, enhancing the cultural sensitivity and appreciation of the human resource functions in the department. We responded with some enthusiasm to an opportunity to participate in an aboriginal cultural teachings experience offsite in an aboriginal context. The human resources manager went through a very meaningful development process which she reported back on in writing, very appreciative of the opportunity to have had that kind of experience.
All of these are the kinds of things that are being done to try and get a very positive appreciation of the contribution that aboriginal people can make to the mining industry in meaningful jobs over the long haul.
Ms. Mihychuk: One of the opportunities that young people or those with little experience have for getting into the department is as a summer assistant. The process, as I was familiar with it, used to involve interviews at the University of Manitoba and the University of Winnipeg. Has that changed?
Mr. Newman: No, that has not changed, and the interviews are both University of Manitoba and the University of Brandon. In the summer of 1997 staffing, 26 summer students were hired through that process, of which 14 were employment equity designated group members.
Ms. Mihychuk: So I understand that three universities are being interviewed and I think that that is a positive step. Where in the past we have not gone out to the University of Brandon, indeed, I think that that is a positive step, and hopefully we will find somebody who is in the field or thinking about it and that is an opportunity to catch them.
Just following up on the affirmative action, how many women do we now have in the professional sector as geologists?
Mr. Newman: Seven.
Ms. Mihychuk: Out of a total complement of how many? I am looking for a percentage.
Mr. Newman: Seven out of 32.
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The hour now being 5 p.m., time for private members' hour. Committee rise.