Held at the Delta Ottawa Hotel, Sunday 17th November,
and at the Geological Survey of Canada, Monday 18th November

Attendance:

Doug Stead	President
Jeremy Hall	Past President
Micki Allen	Administrative Director, KEGS
Bryan Schreiner	Issues Director
Donald James	Financial Director
Rene Barendregt	International Director
Bob Mummery	Executive Officer (Sunday Afternoon)
Richard Grieve	NRCan ESS (Sunday Afternoon)
Susan Eaton	CSEG
Jim Franklin	SEG
Dennis Blinn	NSERC
Norman Marcotte	NSERC
W K Fletcher	AEG
Soheil Asgapour	CIM
Brian Fryer	MAC
Corey Froese	CGS
Harvey Thorleifson	GAC
Richard Moore	PDAC
Matt Salisbury	CanadaODP

Action items are italicised

1. Welcome and introductions:

Doug Stead welcomed all attendees.

2. Approval of agenda:

Agenda approved after modification of order of contents.

3. Approval of Minutes of the 108th Council Meeting (previously circulated and available at www.geoscience.ca/minutes/108minvan.html).

Approval moved and seconded: motion carried.

4. Action items from 108th Council Meeting not otherwise covered by items of agenda:

a. CGC Census of Geoscientists in Canada.


Tara Coultish was thanked by Doug Stead for the follow-up CGC census article published in Geoscience Canada.

b. 2002 Meeting of Ministers of Mines and Energy: CGC presentation


Bryan Schreiner reported on his presentation on ‘Geoscience in the Innovation Strategy’ made to the ministers, and repeated the slide show. While the response was favourable the issue was rather overshadowed by the current debate on Canada’s response to the Kyoto Accord on climate change.

c. Professional mobility.


In a teleconference call, Gordon Williams and George Cavey spoke on behalf of the Canadian Council of Professional Geoscientists (CCPG), to explain the current situation on the inter-provincial mobility of professional geoscientists in Canada. An Inter-Association Mobility Agreement had been signed in 2001, to allow members of constituent associations (CAs) of CCPG to be able to be accepted as transferees to a second jurisdiction (acknowledging that there is not a full requirement for ‘starting over’ in the second jurisdiction with fresh application for registration). However, this does not, on its own, allow members to work across provincial boundaries. There exists the spirit to allow this, but the mechanisms are not in place. Indeed since the agreements might have to be between pairs of jurisdictions and there are a number of them, a multitude of such bipartite agreements might need to be put in place. This could take a while, because of the differences in requirements and costs associated with licensing in different jurisdictions. However there has been some progress, for example, with an agreement between Quebec and Ontario (subject to confirmation), and this might become a template for other agreements. In this agreement, two categories of practice have been recognised for special arrangements. Incidental practice (with no charge attached) would allow a member in one jurisdiction to complete 3 projects in the other jurisdiction within three months of any one year period. Temporary practice would allow for a particular engagement not exceeding 12 months, for a variable fee less than annual dues. Extension for two additional years at that same reduced rate would be permissible. Ultimately it is likely that multi-jurisdictional registration will become practicable, to meet the demand for ‘one-stop shopping.’ Members would pay a basic registration in the jurisdiction of principal operation, and then pay a supplement to be registered in others. There is a tangled web of intricacies in determining how the supplement should be distributed (for example, because of the extreme differences among jurisdictions in the ratio of resident members to visiting members). Council thanked the CCPG officers for their update, acknowledged that the problems associated with mobility were complex, but encouraged the CCPG to keep pushing for progress on the requisite agreements, so that antipathy to current arrangements would be diffused.

5. CGC Board of Directors

a. Nomination of Finance Director


Nomination and appointment of Don James was approved by Council. CGC thanked Don for his willingness to accept this role, and Bob Mummery for having acted as interim Finance Director for considerably longer than the Board had intended.

b. Vacant positions on the Board


(Committees, Communications Directors) were noted. These may not now be filled prior to the AGM, though the Communications Director is urgently required for CGC to maintain its electronic bulletins and its web page. CGC members should note the need to fill these positions, and most of the others, at the AGM.

6. Reports from the Board of Directors

a. President


Doug Stead tabled his interim report, which addressed activities undertaken by CGC during the year including public awareness, the promotion of geoscience and internal relations. The report can be found at: www.geoscience.ca/presidentreport/pres2002interm.pdf. It was emphasised that CGC had made presentations to members and others wherever appropriate. The Board has developed a standard PowerPoint presentation which can be modified for presentation to different target audiences

b. International Director


Rene Barendregt reported on IGCP foreign exchanges involving David Rudkin working in Australia on paleodrainage and Lionel Jackson attending a conference at Brunel University (UK) on past catastrophes. UNESCO is holding a meeting to review its 5 major science initiatives, of which IGCP is one.

c. Issues Director


Bryan Schreiner reported that he will be attending the IESCO meeting in Ottawa later that week. He reported that 4 CGC position papers had been completed and were awaiting French translation, and 3 (on groundwater, earthquakes and landslides) were in various stages of preparation. The big current issue, however, is Canada’s response to the Kyoto Accord, and the current public debate surrounding government’s recently-stated intention to sign the Kyoto Protocol, on greenhouse gas emissions. This was discussed further under agenda item 12 (see below).

7. The Geoscience Summit Meeting, Calgary, August 24/25 2002

Doug Stead reported on the summit meeting, which had been called by CGC for its members to review opportunities for closer cooperation in moving ahead with common goals over the next 5-10 years. There had been only modest progress at this meeting, though agreement had been reached on the desirability of progressing towards a vision statement for the future of geoscience in Canada (see agenda item 9, below).

8. Discussion of feedback and future initiatives

The members of CGC then met in camera (with the Board absent) for further discussion. On resumption, Council approved the following action item:

CGC Board to circulate a questionnaire to Canadian geoscience societies to gather facts on budgets, memberships, activities and challenges, and to build from the responses an inventory of geoscience society resources; also to solicit the societies’ interests in allocation of resources to shared objectives.

There would need to be deliverables from this process, for example, by raising funding to pursue other funding to enable the shared activities to gain momentum.

This exercise should be completed by the AGM in May.

There was also discussion of the structure of CGC. It appears to be too large and unwieldy for effective and concerted action. A smaller group with representation from industry, government and academia might be more effective. The Board agreed that its current modus operandi is not sustainable, because of its strong dependence on (declining time of) volunteers and a part-time executive officer (the financing of which is not sustainable with present budgets).

9. Status of ‘Geoscience Vision’ document

Jeremy Hall reported on progress with the construction of a vision for geoscience in Canada. The group charged with moving this action forward from the geoscience summit meeting (Fryer, Grieve, Hall, Stead, Thorleifson) had mooted that a first step, which the group would complete, would be to take stock of the current status of geoscience in Canada, and the opportunities that may be accessible. Three papers would be written for publication in first half of 2003. One would deal with a review of current status of different sectors, industry (hydrocarbons, minerals, environmental and geotechnical), government and academia. Hall presented a brief overview of this paper and received valuable feedback on amplification of content. The second paper would review the geoscience needs of Canadians. It would be a view of the expectations others have of the contribution of geoscience to the health and wealth of Canadians, written around 10 or so issues. The third paper would exemplify one organisation’s reaction to those changing expectations, by illustrating how the Geological Survey of Canada has modified its approach to science.

The three papers would be submitted to Geoscience Canada (for publication in one part or two successive parts), and other relevant media for delivery.

10. Executive Officer’s Report

Bob Mummery reported on his activities. The following are excerpts from his report, which was tabled at the meeting.

“Several initiatives have been undertaken. Preparing for and organizing of the Geoscience Summit in Calgary last August was the primary task. This event took place over the weekend of August 24-25 in the Ramada Inn Calgary. Selection of a facilitator, finding a suitable venue and ensuring involvement of all geoscience organizations and other stakeholders were some of the initial tasks. A total of twenty-five geoscience societies/groups were invited to attend the meetings. Sixteen sent representatives. The minutes of the meeting were emailed to all invitees in early September and provide the core material for a submission to Geoscience Canada currently being prepared.

A second area of activity related to geoscience education. Specifically, fund raising efforts connected with GeoSciEd IV, were undertaken. Bob’s role was to help identify corporate sponsors willing to provide financial assistance to Canadian teachers desiring to attend the event. These efforts have identified several potential sponsors with over $50,000 of support committed.

The CGC was without a Financial Director for almost one year. During this period, Bob has handled the Director’s duties, which included: submission of forms to the government (GST, NPO), making bank deposits, re-investing term deposits, paying invoices, tracking expenses. We have been investigating ways of decreasing the “day to day” financial responsibilities related to the Finance director’s duties and will continue to provide whatever assistance necessary to help make the new Finance Director’s position more effective.

Currently activities have been directed to investigating alternate financing models for the CGC. At present the Federal government (through the GSC) provides about 70% of the funds required to operate the Council. Pressure to decrease this amount of support gets stronger each year. Increasing annual subscription fees was informally rejected at the Geoscience summit in Calgary. Foundation funding is a viable alternative. Most require registration as a charity with the federal Government. However this route could put limits on the role the CGC. However according to Alan Morgan the CGC can issue tax receipts through the Canadian Geological Foundation (CGF), so that we might be able to use their registered charitable number for CGC funding applications. This requires further investigation. Alternately, several Foundations do not have a registration requirement for funding and these avenues are being pursued. Recognition of the need for a “national” coordinating body for geoscience is the first step. Defining that body’s role will follow and should lead to the proper sources for funding. Many ideas have been brought forward including: individual membership to the CGC, amalgamation with other “national” bodies (ie: CCPG), doubling the number of member societies. All deserve investigation.

There have been concerns that several of the major societies have a “disconnect” with the CGC. Part of the role of Executive Director has been to meet with executive members from different societies to get their perspective on the relationship between their group and the CGC. The results of theses meeting are passed on to the CGC President & other Directors To date, informal meetings have been held with executive members from the GAC, CIM, CSEG and CSPG. Several areas of joint cooperation have been identified. One idea emerging has been to prepare an “electronic” geoscience newsletter for Canada. This newsletter could contain the “best” of general interest articles published in Society Newsletters (Geolog, Recorder, Reservoir, etc). These meeting have also brought awareness of efforts by several societies to have more “joint” conferences with a wider range of geoscience interests (environment, groundwater, interplanetary, oceanography etc). These communication efforts will continue.

11. Canada’s Innovation Strategy

Jeremy Hall reported on his activities in promoting the value of geoscience in Canada’s evolving innovation strategy. The brief presented to the Mines Ministers by Bryan Schreiner had been developed for a more general submission to Industry Canada, and Hall had attended several federal government department discussion sessions, both locally in St. John’s (DFO, Industry Canada), and in Vancouver (NRCan). The submission to Industry Canada would be published in the December 2002 issue of Geoscience Canada.

12. CGC input to the public debate on the Kyoto Accord.

There was considerable discussion on how CGC might respond to the current public debate on the federal government’s announced intention to sign the Kyoto Protocol. CSPG had already published its response and other societies (e.g. CSEG) wanted to know if CGC would develop a position, with which they might be aligned. It was recognised that geoscience does have a role to ply in this issue and its ramifications, but that this is not widely recognized: we should get something out now, on “Climate changes….”. CIM had a neutral position on Kyoto but intended to hold a one day workshop (November 25) mediated by Peter Mansbridge. The following action was approved (moved by Hall, seconded by Fryer):

CGC to publish a position paper on climate change as per discussion within the month. Jeremy Hall and Doug Stead would write a proposal and circulate for approval by Board and Council.

13. Review of position papers

Bryan Schreiner summarised the current status of position papers. Those on Geological mapping, Sequestration of carbon dioxide, High-level radioactive waste, and Subaqueous tailings waste disposal, had been completed and approved. Initial draft of a groundwater paper had been approved but not yet formatted. Position on Landslides, Earthquakes and (now) Climate Change would b forthcoming. French translations are required.

J. Clague reported on the survey of member organizations’ public awareness activities. A substantial response had been received and an earlier, very extensive, CGEN survey (Mackin, 1998) reviewed. The next step would be to merge the new survey with an abridged and more-assimilable version of the earlier report. This would form a strong basis for determining how to build from the present status.

14. CGC Standing Committees

a. Sustainable Mineral Resources Development.

This committee had held a useful workshop in Vancouver immediately following the CIM meeting in the Spring of 2002. Subsequent to this, it had attached itself to the Letter of Intent for a Network of Centres of Excellence on “Innovation for Sustainable Mining” submitted in July 2002 by UBC. The competition had been very strong, with only a handful of proponents invited to submit a full proposal from around 50 letters submitted. The UBC proposal was unsuccessful. The future plans of the committee were being reviewed by members at a meeting in Yellowknife, with discussion revolving around how to maintain momentum through a series of smaller initiatives. Further discussion would be held at a session during the next GAC/MAC meeting in Vancouver, May 2003.

b. International Continental Drilling Program.

This committee had held a very successful workshop on drilling the Sudbury impact structure, and a sub-group would be submitting a preproposal ICDP at year’s end. Another workshop, on drilling in the north, would likely be held in the New Year. Meantime, discussions had started with Canadian funding agencies, especially NSERC, on how best to seek funding for Canadian participation in ICDP.

c. The Integrated Ocean Drilling Program.

Matt Salisbury reported on the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program - intended successor to ODP (in which 22 countries were involved and over 100 accomplishments achieved). CanadaODP had been unsuccessful in applying to the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI) for funding of membership of the new program (application for $40 million over 5 years), despite agreements for GSC funding components, an application to NSERC for science support, and a commitment from the petroleum sector. Further funding applications would be made, probably through NSERC, but we might again need to find partners for a shared membership (which would mean concomitant reductions in participation, both in planning and operations). Members confirmed that CGC would support applications for funding with appropriate letters of support.

15. Canadian Network on Geohazards

Corey Froese reported on several recent Canadian geohazard initiatives. The “Canadian National Network on Geohazards Initiative” led by Jacques Locat was discussed and support for this in the form of a CGC standing committee suggested. Doug Stead had attended the recent Canadian Geotechnical Society, Engineering Geology Division meeting at Niagara and had indicated that a letter requesting the formation of a standing committee should be forwarded to CGC. The activities of the Canadian Landslide Hazard Reduction Program, instituted by the GSC were briefly outlined. Corey Froese emphasised that due to the intense activity in natural hazard research in Canada at present there was a defined need for more coordination of activities. Doug Stead indicated that this was exactly the type of activity that CGC would be interested in promoting.

16. Any other business

a. The Jack Satterly Geocronology Laboratory at the Royal Ontario Museum is scheduled for closure, unless the lab can raise an endowment of $15 million within 6 months. This is an unlikely possibility. The laboratory provides an invaluable geochronological service to geologists across Canada, so that its future is significant to many research groups and geological surveys. It was agreed that:
CGC, through the Board, should offer support in writing for any initiative that will allow the laboratory to continue its service to the geological community in whatever venue is deemed most appropriate.
b. The next meeting of CGC would be held during the next GAC/MAC meeting in Vancouver, 26 May 2003 (date and venue to be confirmed).

17. The Presidents Report on “The Future role of CGC”

Doug Stead discussed the issues that had been raised by the Summit meeting in Calgary and the perceived current state of Canadian Geoscience and CGC. In particular the future role of CGC in promoting Canadian geoscience was addressed. The problems facing CGC and ways in which CGC might change were outlined. The CGC President presented the options that the Board saw for CGC’s future role. This report can be found at: www.geoscience.ca/presidentreport/pres2002future.pdf

1. Continue as is
2. Evaluate CGC’s role, adapt and move forward
3. Replace with an alternative
4. Dissolve CGC and let each geoscience sector function independently with no central unifying organization.

It was urged that the CGC members consider the options available and emphasised that the current CGC Board does not see “continuing as is” as a viable option.

After a period of discussion the CGC Council responded to the report with suggestions for ways in which the CGC Council might be adapted. It was suggested that the CGC Board investigate the infrastructure of member societies with a view to exploring efficiencies and improved cooperation between Council member organisations.

[Meeting adjourned for the day]

Meeting continued at the Geological Survey of Canada, 18th November

Meeting with senior managers of the Earth Sciences Sector, Natural Resources Canada.

Attendance:

CGC (see beginning of minutes for affiliations):
Doug Stead
Bob Mummery
Bryan Schreiner
Rene Barendregt
Micki Allen
Don James
Richard Moore
Harvey Thorleifson
Susan Eaton
Brian Fryer
Corey Froese
W.K. Fletcher
Jim Franklin
George Dix (CCCESD)
Earth Sciences Sector:
Susan Till
Richard Grieve
Monique Carpentier
David Boerner
John Broome

Presentations/Discussions included:

David Boerner: Issues driven programs-how are we getting there?”

Susan Till: The Earth Science Sector and S & T Strategy; Where are we going and why ?

John Broome: CGKN involvement of others in the innovation system

Monique Carpentier/Richard Grieve: Relations with academia, how to be more connected and strategic in an issues driven program.

Richard Grieve/Doug Stead: GSC relations with CGC and future funding. What can CGC do for GSC?

The presentations outlined the directions in which the Earth Science Sector are proceeding and stressed the need for a new basis of relationship. From its proposed polling of the Canadian geoscience community, CGC must define and carry through a realigned operation. The Board of CGC, as expressed in its Presidents report on the “Future Role of CGC” presented at the CGC Council Meeting were in full agreement that CGC must adapt. The Board had emphasised to Council at its 109th meeting that “continuing as is:” was not an option. Realignment and change as suggested by the last GSC presentation were essential if CGC were to serve the Canadian geoscience community as it should and become a true focus for Canadian geoscience.