GUEST COLUMN (April 06, 1992)

The Mineral Policy Sector (MPS) of Energy Mines and Resources Canada (EMR) is well known in the mineral industry. At the Centre for Resource Studies (CRS), we have been especially dependent on the MPS, for substantive and financial support.

The federal government has placed some of its mining-related activities on the table as a bargaining chip in the current constitutional negotiations with the provinces. This offer of federal withdrawal from the mining area has generally been interpreted to focus on the MPS. It, therefore, seems useful to consider why the MPS has been placed in this position, and whether reducing or relocating its funding and mandate would be constructive. There are three official reasons for the federal offer to withdraw from selected areas:

–to eliminate federal encroachment of defined areas of provincial jurisdiction;

–to eliminate overlap and duplication of programs and activities; –and to save money.

In my own small, informal survey, provincial officials firmly rejected the validity of the first two reasons. They find the MPS to be a valued supporter in defending provincial jurisdiction over minerals against encroachments by other federal departments and agencies, particularly with respect to environmental assessment and regulation. And they mentioned no instances of duplication by MPS. On the contrary, most provincial officials reported that they depend on the MPS for a number of services, and that it makes an important contribution to their own operations.

As for saving money, the MPS is a very small and cost-effective operation to target. In 1991-92, EMR’s budget was $812 million, allocated among its responsibilities and programs for energy, minerals and metals. The MPS delivers all the services of its three policy branches, Mineral Strategy, Mineral and Metal Commodities, and Economic and Financial Analysis. That disposes of the arguments for cutting back on MPS’s role. What about arguments for keeping it? I would argue that the MPS is essential: –to provincial mining departments, which would find their tasks noticeably harder and more expensive to perform without it;

–to the mineral industry, which needs its market-access support, its policy guidance, and its supply-and-demand intelligence;

–to industry and governments alike, because of MPS’s knowledge and balanced view of the industry, and its access to cabinet and to other departments; –to a host of other clients associated with the mineral industry. At CRS, for example, most of our research activities would be difficult, if not impossible, to perform without the support of MPS, its industry specialists and its publications;

–and MPS is essential to Canada’s international competitiveness and to the “economic union” as a whole (since the mineral industry contributes almost 5% of total Canada’s gross domestic product (GDP) and 18% of exports). No other organization — federal, provincial or non-governmental — is as well-placed to perform these services. MPS has a unique capital of knowledge and contacts; it has economies of scale; it has the sanctions the federal government can invoke and the confidentiality it can promise, for example under the terms of the Statistics Act.

My conclusions are firmly partisan in this issue. I believe that the MPS serves a vital role. Any cutback would compromise the knowledge base and support services that are essential to the competitive position of the Canadian mineral industry.

If you share this view, you may want to make your views known to the provincial and federal officials with whom the decision rests. –Margot Wojciechowski is executive director at the Centre for Resource Studies, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont.