Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): 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.
* (1450)
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 23.2.(d) Geological Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits on page 47 of the Estimates book.
Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): We are now in the Geological Services branch, and I have several questions in this area. One of my concerns has been that this branch has been underfunded. Now I do not have the actual numbers and it looks like a fairly steady rate of budgeting, but there are certain indicators, I think, that tell a story, and that is the number of projects that are being undertaken by the department in any one year, the number of field days conducted, the number of days per project in the field. These are very relevant because, as I have said in the past, one of the most important things that the department does is provide that base information, the geological data. If we cannot afford to put the geologists out there because we do not have enough supports or we do not have enough equipment or we cannot fund the assistants that are required so that full field seasons can occur, then I think we are doing a disservice to industry, to the geological community, to the geologists themselves and to the taxpayers of Manitoba.
We do have a considerable number of professionals and technical people in the department. The minister indicated there were 32 geologists. I have some numbers which indicate in 1996, for instance, there were only 14 projects totalling 1,069 days of field work. In 1997 there were 26 projects, field days of 1,350, and the number of days per project was only 52.
Now in a comprehensive field season, you can get crews out in May because the geological assistants, the university students, have completed their program of study, so in theory you could be out doing that essential work through May, June, July and August, a full four months, giving you approximately 120 days available for that important work.
Can the minister indicate if my numbers are accurate and the number of projects that we anticipate to be doing field work this year?
Hon. David Newman (Minister of Energy and Mines): With respect to the field days, the figures that my department provides me with are that '97-98, 1,157; '98-99, projected this year 1,192. My staff's speculation is that the additional days that you have probably relate to support staff. These are actual geologist field days that I have given you.
Ms. Mihychuk: If we in theory put out all 32 geologists for a full four months with a full complement, how many field days would be available in the summer program? That is simple mathematics.
Mr. Newman: I am advised that the correct number for field geologists is 21. They are the ones that actually do field work. The additional field days for this year will be 35, given the figures that I have given you, but the average number of days per geologist using that figure of 21 is 58 days per geologist.
Ms. Mihychuk: Well, I guess no matter which way you cut it, I think that 58 days would amount to approximately two months, and my argument would still hold that you could double the number of field days in a full season of four months.
I am wondering if the number of field days is related to the support budget, the available monies for field assistants, available monies for the equipment and transportation, et cetera. Is that the limiting factor for the field program?
Mr. Newman: I fully acknowledge that the amount of resources dedicated to this area is a factor in the number of days, but another factor which is relevant is that in some cases the field geologists do not perform in the field for the full maximum period for reasons of choice by the department in terms of compiling field data and doing work in an office setting. A portion of that season is utilized for that purpose without in any way relating to resource allocation.
Ms. Mihychuk: Even if we look at 21 field geologists of the 32 that the minister identified, provide four months of field program, the total number of field days available is 2,520. We are approximately looking at half, half of the optimum in terms of what may be available for those individuals.
Is the minister satisfied with that performance or field program?
Mr. Newman: I am advised that a reasonable, fair description of the number of days in a field season would be 90, and in an optimum situation where we had no concerns about resources within government, we would prefer to expand the number of days closer to those 90 in most cases, subject to the qualifications I gave you earlier.
* (1500)
Ms. Mihychuk: Is the minister prepared to provide additional supports in terms of Other Expenditures, line item 23.2.(d)(2) would it be, to potentially expand the field season program, if there are limitations based on those resources?
Mr. Newman: Frankly, no one has ever made that case to me, but if the department made that case to my level, given what I believe to be the importance of this kind of contribution to enhancing mining investment and mining activity, I would be very, very interested in having a well-developed argument to be in readiness to ultimately perhaps replace the kind of support or be replaced by the kind of support that we are giving MEAP because, as I have told you previously, my belief is that MEAP does have a limited life in that, when we overcome the negative good will created by the NDP, those resources--I would like to then argue--could be best dedicated in the same amount or in an appropriate amount in order to meet the more optimum objectives of geological work by geologists within the department.
Ms. Mihychuk: Can the minister indicate if the field projects that are going to be conducted this year are industry based, and by that I mean either mineral deposits, providing geological information in terms of the Superior project, et cetera? Are there projects that are more theoretical? In the past, there have been individuals who have done, for example, caving for years on the department's budget, and although that may have been geologically very interesting, its economic merits have been questioned.
Now, that individual is no longer with the department, and I would assume that that field program has been terminated, but it does raise the issue of priorities and to ensure that when we do send out people or make that expenditure that it is related to the economic well-being, whether we argue in the short term or in the long term, but that it be relevant and necessary, particularly when we have seen the loss of resources over the last 10 years in this area and presently with the economic crisis in mining.
So it is a fairly delicate subject, but I want to be assured that the programs are based on the needs of Manitobans and perhaps not the personal interests of individuals that may have the ability to go out in the field.
Mr. Newman: I am advised that all of our projects have been vetted through the Mineral Exploration Liaison Committee and have been prioritized by them, and they have endorsed the projects being put forward for this year.
Ms. Mihychuk: Was that the procedure in the past?
Mr. Newman: In the past, I am advised that there have been some exceptions to this particular process. I made the inquiry as to whether or not it would be anticipated that there would be departures in the future, and I am advised and agree with the approach that that should only take place and will only take place in circumstances where something unanticipated or not considered by the liaison committee comes along. At that time that might be seen to be a higher priority but, other than that, the prioritization done through the process we discussed will be adhered to.
Ms. Mihychuk: I take that as an assurance and just wanted to raise the issue, because it is well known that the situation occurred. I am glad it is over and that we are moving on to a new era and that we focus our resources in places that are very much needed.
One of the other areas that I would like to ask, are there any studies this year going to be occurring in terms of lake sedimentation or riverway studies?
Mr. Newman: We will be involved in a flood frequency study relating to the Red River in conjunction with the geological survey of Canada, and that would be a flood frequency over the last 500 years.
Ms. Mihychuk: In the past year, I believe last year there was the decision to get rid of the internal lab analysis for geochemistry, and those positions were released, and now that work is being contracted out. What has been the result of that decision in terms of efficiency, cost? I guess those are the two areas. Are we getting the job done in a timely manner, and what is the cost per sample now versus when it was done internally?
* (1510)
Mr. Newman: The value of the services contracted to the contractor, ETL, was $60,220.80 for this year. The department advises that all contractual commitments in terms of turn-around time are being met. So that is the detail on the efficiency in cost.
Ms. Mihychuk: Does the department provide availability of sabbaticals for geologists via deferred salary? This would give individuals the ability to put some money away for a future time when they wished to take a year off to perhaps do geological studies in other parts of Canada, perhaps do some international work, perhaps to go back to university, or it may give them a year to get out of the bush. You can get a little bushwhacked sometimes, and it is important to have that flexibility, I think, for geologists.
This is a fairly common practice in certain sectors. For instance, in the education sector, which I just came out of in my other role, it is encouraged. It allows the department, for example, to bring on new people, to provide them with the ability to be a geologist for a year or two years and allow them the ability to get to know the department, the mining industry, and get their foot into the industry. So in a sector where there is not a great deal of turnover, there is not a whole lot of movement in the geologists, I think there is going to be a bump. We are all sort of aging in a group, but other than that--and I do not think they are really ready for retirement yet--
An Honourable Member: I think you are, as a politician.
Ms. Mihychuk: I am just moving my way up. This would provide the opportunity for them to self-deposit, so it does not cost the government anything. This is a very good idea for the government--I will give you this one without any charge--and be excellent morale and provide flexibility for the geologists. So I am wondering if the minister does not have that available, if he would consider it.
Mr. Newman: Once again, thank you for your constructive suggestion and approach. It does appear to coincide with the kind of approach the department is planning for. Through the provincial geologists committee and the national geological surveys committee, the branch is investigating the potential for establishing exchange programs to facilitate the kinds of objectives you described.
Ms. Mihychuk: I think that is a really positive sign, and I hope that there could be that type of sensitivity, that as well as the additional supports in terms of what we had talked about earlier, providing supports for families. I think it would make the field much more sensitive and open and make it much more attractive for individuals that were not necessarily attracted to geology. That is exactly what we want to.
One of the other areas I wanted to ask about is industrial minerals. There was a situation raised in the past year about building stone, in particular, a quarry south of Snow Lake. I do not know if the minister is aware of that. They were, unfortunately, unable, because of regulation or rules at that time, to access money or grants of any kind through MEAP, but it seemed to be that the rules should have been changed, that there may be potential for exploratory development, or possibly job creation. So I am looking to the minister to provide some leadership or information in terms of that sector. Are there supports for industrial minerals, for the development of industrial minerals in Manitoba, and what do we see those being, if they are not established already?
Mr. Newman: Well, you are definitely once again not only being constructive, but touching a matter that is dear to my own heart in terms of renewed emphasis. The industrial minerals area has an enormous potential in this province, the magnitude of which is only now starting to emerge. The refocusing to reprioritize has led to the emergence of an industrial mineral strategy, and the strategy involves the department actively striving to promote the industrial mineral sector.
In addition, an industrial minerals geologist will be hired in this fiscal year, and a delivery of the aggregate program has been transferred to the Geological Services Branch to facilitate co-ordination with other industrial mineral and geological mapping activities. An industrial mineral and specialties metals advisory board, or otherwise called a steering committee, is currently being established to identify market and development opportunities. Some form of incentive program analogous to MEAP is being considered to help promote development in this sector in conjunction with our MEAP review.
* (1520)
With respect to the very specific situation you described involving, I believe it would be John Kobar and his dolomite deposit in the northern area. We have had several meetings with him and with economic development people from Snow Lake and the mayor and other representation from Snow Lake. We have had several meetings with Cross Lake about their black granite potential deposit usage. We are in co-operation with Rural Development, playing our co-ordination role, looking at a feasibility of a finishing plant in conjunction with the Department of Rural Development and the Snow Lake community development group, with a view to achieving funding of a feasibility study.
We are doing things to actively promote a better knowledge of the use to which those kinds of products can be utilized in Manitoba by consumers here, and we have encouraged a greater involvement by the private-sector people in the industry in doing international marketing by participating in trade shows elsewhere. Our experience has been building those networks as a key to raising the profile of Manitoba, and it was noteworthy, I think, that there was a presence by several groups marketing industrial minerals at our Mining and Minerals Convention in Winnipeg last November, and I would expect even more participation this year.
Ms. Mihychuk: In terms of the summer field season, in the past season were there any field accidents last year?
Mr. Newman: No one has any knowledge of any accident of any sort. Certainly there are no majors ones.
Ms. Mihychuk: Are all summer assistants treated equally, and by that, are they given equal opportunity to experience different types of field environments, the different jobs that are involved? I can cite an example. This is quite a long time ago, but the female summer staff were not required to drive an outboard motor, and one of the experiences was to provide support services to the camp. That would be taking garbage over to an island, et cetera. It provides the student the ability to learn how to handle the motor and do various other jobs that are all providing a well-rounded experience to those individuals. In this case, the females did not do that job. Ultimately it resulted in this individual not having the experience with an outboard motor and ultimately was in a very serious accident in a summer situation.
So I want to be assured that, no matter what your gender, each field student would have that opportunity to use various types of equipment and experience different field situations.
Mr. Newman: I am advised that certainly at the acting-director level there is no knowledge of any discrimination based on gender of the type that you have described. If I ever heard that there were, I would be very unimpressed. I think that everyone should be given the same privilege to get their hands dirty and take on the tough jobs. I agree that it is not only a learning experience which can instill pride and self-esteem but it also increases competencies, and beyond that, can be a safety factor. Your point is well made, and I would expect that that would be the way things are done in the department.
Ms. Mihychuk: Does the branch have plans to instruct the field crews to liaise with local First Nations communities in the areas, if they are going to be doing field work in those areas?
Mr. Newman: The practice that has been followed in the past has been to send a letter to the neighbouring affected First Nations or other aboriginal communities with a view to informing them as to what to expect by way of geological work being done by the department, and this year that letter will be sent under the signature of the deputy minister.
Ms. Mihychuk: The supports for crews that are in remote areas are shipped in from various places in the province. It sort of depends on the project. Is there a commitment to use locals, and by that I mean, if you are in the northern Superior project, if you have helicopter support, are you going to be obtaining your groceries from a nearby community, Thompson, Norway House, or are you going to be bringing it in from Winnipeg by truck, which has been done in the past? It would be a huge benefit to the local community to be able to provide supports for those crews.
* (1530)
Mr. Newman: I am advised that the source of food and camp supplies is based on a cost normally coming from northern service centres, which would be the larger northern communities. They are flown in using local air services when that is the appropriate means of transport. The department will also purchase supplies from smaller communities where they are available at an appropriate price and accessible.
Ms. Mihychuk: That concludes my questions in this area.
Mr. Chairperson: 23.2. Energy and Mineral Resources (d) Geological Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $2,604,500--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $1,171,700--pass.
Resolution 23.2: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $8,910,400 for Energy and Mines, Energy and Mineral Resources, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1999.
Moving on to 23.3. Industry Support Programs (a) Mineral Exploration Assistance Program, $3 million.
Ms. Mihychuk: I think we passed this.
Mr. Newman: I had some answers to some questions you raised the last day. Would this be an appropriate time to provide them before you move into this area?
Mr. Chairperson: Is there leave of the committee for the minister to provide the answers that were presented last sitting of this committee? [agreed]
Mr. Newman: The names of the Mining Board members, I gave you four names. The names of all the members are Presiding Member Douglas Nicol Abra, Deputy Presiding Member Ian Restall, Member Donald T. Anderson, Member James E. Matthews, Member Lawrence Yusisatan.
The per diem rate for a presiding member is $336 or $191 per meeting lasting three and one-half hours or less. The per diem rate for other members is $192 a day or $109 per meeting lasting three and a half hours or less. Reasonable travelling and out-of-pocket expenses incurred in the performance of duties may be claimed by members. The Mining Board held two hearings in 1997 and one hearing in 1996.
You had asked a question about claim inspections. In 1997, the claims inspector went into the field to carry out inspections on approximately 20 occasions for periods of time varying from one to five days. Prior to December 1997, no record was kept of all the claims visited if no problems were encountered, but since that time a new procedure has been put into place. It is now required that the inspector log all claims visited regarding problems encountered. A claim is normally visited if (1) inconsistencies are noted when plotting a new claim on the claim maps, (2) a staker reports that he or she is unable to find the stakes of a claim to which he or she anticipated tying on, (3) a new, unknown staker comes into the area; the inspector might check out his or her claims to see what kind of job they had done. An inspector will also carry out random checks on claims within an area that is visited for one of the preceding reasons.
With respect to the budget, the reduction from two to one inspectors incurred in the fiscal year 1992-93--since that time, the operating budget for the inspector has been raised from $7,000 to its present level of $14,500 annually. These costs do not include salary or vehicle costs.
At the committee meeting on the morning of April 23, the honourable member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk) asked how many geologists have left the department since April 1995. At that time I responded, subject to confirmation, that the number was four, two female, two male. Staff have checked out records, and I can now confirm that the number is in fact five, two female, three male.
Pursuant to our discussion the day before yesterday on April 28, you sought information about annual employment in Manitoba mines. The figures which we have obtained include Rea Gold's Bissett mine. They are derived from the monthly figures reported to the Mines Accident Prevention Association of Manitoba. Stats Canada numbers differ and are incorrect because they class smelting and refining as manufacturing, not mining, and mining diamond-drilling contractors are not included for the purposes of this analysis. The figures for 1989 total 4,384; 1990, 4,350; 1991, 4,789; 1992, 4,696; 1993, 4,388; 1994, 4,047; 1995, 4,237; 1996, 4,438; 1997, 4,470.
The mining companies who comprised this listing--the mining companies are listed here, so you can see that this does not include the explorationists, the junior exploration companies that are active in Manitoba. The companies that are used for this analysis are Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting in their Flin Flon, Snow Lake and Leaf Rapids operations; Inco Ltd., LynnGold, Tanco, Rea Gold, TVX and Blackhawk. The magnitude of HBM&S is: in Flin Flon, 1,520; Snow Lake, 73; Leaf Rapids, 444; Inco Ltd., 1,762; LynnGold, none since 1989; Tanco, 125; Rea Gold's figure for 1997 was 229 and in 1996 was 60, before that nothing; TVX, 262; Blackhawk, 95. Total 4,470.
Ms. Mihychuk: Thank you very much for those numbers and that information. I appreciate the speed of the response, and it certainly clarifies some of the concerns that I had about some of the dramatic differences of numbers that we heard--one number being 2,000, that would have been a drastic reduction. It also explains some of the comments made by the Mining Association, always cite the statistical variation between StatsCan and themselves, so I thank the department and the minister for providing that information.
Mr. Newman: With respect to the Mining Association, we also have information from them so you can see why--maybe what we have done is established a methodology for talking the same process and the same methodology for arriving at numbers. That is why I cited the notes to the comments I made about the figures we provided because the Mining Association now includes diamond drilling and contractors in their employment figures. So, for example, their figures for 1996, where we would have said 4,438, they said 4,901; and for 1995 where we said 4,237, they said a total of 4,333. But they do break theirs down and do show the contractors and the diamond drilling numbers separately but also inclusively in the total figure.
* (1540)
Mr. Chairperson: 23.3. Industry Support Programs (a) Mineral Exploration Assistance Program $3,000,000--pass; 3.(b) Petroleum Exploration Assistance Program $1,000,000--pass; 3.(c) Manitoba Potash Project $175,600--pass; 3.(d) Acid Rain Abatement Program--Flin Flon $115,700--pass.
Resolution 23.3: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $4,291,300 for Energy and Mines, Industry Support Programs $4,291,300, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1999.
The next item to be considered for the Estimates of the Department of Energy and Mines is the item 1.(a) Minister's Salary. At this point we request the minister's staff to leave the table for the consideration of this item.
23.1. Administration and Finance (a) Minister's Salary $13,200. Shall the item pass?
Ms. Mihychuk: I am going to use this opportunity to do a little summary of a nine-point plan that I think should raise the concerns of Manitobans and raises concerns for me in particular. I am not going to be presenting a motion to reduce the Minister's Salary to a penny or to half, but I raise these concerns because I think that the minister sincerely wishes to be knowledgeable and to be responsive and aware of the situation, but I think unfortunately that is not the case.
In this sector I think that the minister's efforts to deal with Hydro, Northern Flood, Treaty Land and other initiatives that he has been involved in have perhaps taken him away from this sector which has a certain amount of self-reliance, and I think that this year I guess in total feel that perhaps the minister is less knowledgeable about mining than he was the year before. He is still a rookie. I mean he only got the position a year ago, so I think that there is room to improve. I am not even talking about his vocabulary in terms of geological terms which is a challenge to anybody.
But my serious concerns I have to put on the record because mining is at a critical stage right now, because I believe that it is essential to Manitoba's economy, because I believe it deserves the respect and attention of a government which unfortunately it is not getting.
One of the first things that was evident is the lack of mining experience in the minister's executive office. This was a decision by the minister. I completely understand. I respect the deputy minister; however, really there is a marked lack of expertise in the minister's office.
Item two, there is the issue of three individuals, I understand, of the five that work only part time for the department, probably a maximum amount of 50 percent devoted to Energy and Mines, the rest being to Northern Affairs, while their salary is totally supported by the department. I know the minister indicated he would look at that. I hope he does. I think that is not representing the situation as it should be in terms of Estimates. Salaries should reflect the jobs they do.
Item three, the department goals which are established to support the department's mission appear to be changeable at whim without consultation of the stakeholders, the partners--and basically from my perspective to ensure that they are met. Sometimes goals are met and sometimes they are not met, but the idea is that there is a process, that they are challenging and something that we all work towards. It is a real concern to me when goals can be changed at whim by the minister or by the department, and I have to object to that.
Item four, as noted by the motion that I presented, the withdrawal, the unprecedented withdrawal of $6 million from the Mining Reserve Fund, a fund that was established with the, I think, clear intent, as articulated in the bill, to provide that support to mining communities, the workers in those communities at times of crisis when a mine is about to close or is losing reserves. That is all articulated clearly in the Mining Reserve Fund act.
I am not challenging that what they did has somehow broken the law. Clearly those provisions are there, that there is the ability of the government to take the money out, but for the 27 years I believe that the Mining Reserve Fund has existed, it has never been done before. The funds have been directed to provide supports for those mining communities, and we have a serious difference of philosophy and opinion on this. I obviously do not support using the Mining Reserve Fund for exploration in areas, speculative exploration. These are programs that are looking at the long term. What that fund to me seems--it was directed at providing immediate supports to the workers in those mining communities. So I feel that this is a serious, serious concern, and I have to express my objection.
Item five, serious concerns I have raised about the monitoring and inspections of MEAPs, a program in which exploration companies receive money. For instance, we learnt during this process that there have been no field inspections since May of 1997. I know that this was raised here. The minister indicated his concern, and I think that there will be improvements, but this is now the second year and the improvements may come at the end of MEAP. I sort of heard hints from the minister that we may be looking at other options, but when there is public money there must be the serious attempt to monitor and ensure that that money is spent as indicated and that the people of Manitoba are getting a meaningful return, and that includes field inspections by competent personnel who know what they are supposed to be looking for and in a co-ordinated approach.
* (1550)
Item six, the fact that the department encourages exploration companies to work in Manitoba without specifically identifying, in our case, this year, resource management lands. These are lands identified in co-operation with First Nations by encouraging companies, and we have a very significant expansion in the Marketing branch. This has been ongoing for several years. There is no onus or there is not an equal onus required by that branch to ensure that the respect and the awareness and the sensitivity is also provided to those exploration companies. The priority seems, explore, explore, explore and they should know better than to go on First Nations land. Well, we are actively encouraging exploration companies to come into Manitoba, we should also be respecting First Nations, their aspirations and their need to be aware of what is happening in lands that they have identified.
Item seven, the issuance of public monies through the MEAP program to promote and actively provide exploration in lands identified by First Nations without requiring these companies to register any type of disposition, that is, the exploration permit or any other type of public notice that they are into those lands. Had that been given, the situation which we discussed in some detail would not have happened. The community in question would have been able to access that information, raised concerns with the minister or at least meet with the companies to find out what type of activity was going to happen. But by not requiring companies to issue or to hold an exploration program while still receiving public money I feel is a serious concern and flies in the face of the words of the minister when he talks about respect and working in partnership with First Nations. There must be that type of open accountability, especially for companies that receive public money.
Item eight: The issue of the Systemhouse deal apparently is not going to be very useful, if of any use to the department. I understand that the department is way ahead of what Systemhouse is providing. They have done a very good job in providing high tech, some of the best technical upgrading in the department. Their equipment surpasses what is available through Systemhouse. They are going to be required to keep three of the four personnel that they had who maintained the whole system, so they are going to be required to pay additional money for Systemhouse as well as keeping that support staff. That to me seems to be totally inappropriate. We are using money for something that is, in this case, not providing the information or the base that this department needs. It is highly technical and moving ahead and in fact may even hold back the department if they complied with just receiving the Systemhouse desktop program. So that is another area. I know that it is a government comprehensive program that is adopted by the government, but I think in this case it is going to be costly and not particularly effective for the department or for the people of Manitoba.
And ultimately No. 10: The minister's lack of knowledge of the department mining numbers, his knowledge of the mining industry seems apparent, and that is extremely unfortunate. I think that the minister shows sincere interest and effort and I do not blame him. I think that he has got on his plate a very large mandate, including very important sectors that are very time-consuming and demanding, but mining is extremely important to the people of Manitoba, extremely important to the revenues of the government and deserves the attention of the minister, his senior staff, and I feel that in this case, the mining sector has been shortchanged and that is extremely unfortunate.
But overall I have always enjoyed working with the minister who has been very co-operative and provided information, and so it is with some regret that I condemn his performance as the Minister of Mines, although he seems like a very nice person, not too knowledgeable about this area. I think that there is enormous room to improve, and on a serious note, that mining and the mining sector needs direct attention at this time, given commodity prices are falling, people are losing their jobs, and there is a number of very serious situations in Manitoba's mining community. I thank the minister for his co-operation in providing information and look forward to next year.
Mr. Chairperson: 23.1. Administration and Finance (a) Minister's Salary.
Mr. Newman: I think I need a transfusion because of the bite in my lip. The only comment that I will make is I really do appreciate the honourable member for St. James doing my annual evaluation, and it demonstrated the sort of quality that was befitting a candidate for one-half of the job that I now have--aspiring candidate for the job that I now have.
Mr. Chairperson: 23.1.(a) Minister's Salary $13,200--pass.
Resolution 23.l: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $1,156,900 for Energy and Mines, Administration and Finance, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1999.
This now concludes the Estimates of the Department of Energy and Mines. The next set of Estimates that we will be considering in this section of the Committee of Supply is the Estimates of Civil Service. What is the will of the committee? Proceed.