Highlights of the Meeting: Two significant motions were moved, seconded and passed during the meeting. In the first motion it was agreed that the CGC would continue to support Canada's international involvement, as in the past, but that this involvement would be reviewed on an annual basis. This motion had 13 votes in favour, one against and one abstention. In the second motion, it was agreed by a vote of 14, with one abstention, that the fees would be raised to $2.50 per individual within each member society.
Attendance	Jeremy Hall, Issues Director, CGC Réjean Couture, Canadian Geotechnical Society Colin Dunn, Association of Exploration Geochemists Dan Smith, The Canadian Association of Geographers Richard Grieve, Earth Science Sector, (Geological Survey of Canada) NRCan Paul Robinson, Education Director, CGC Vic Levson, CANQUA (Canadian Quaternary Association) Peter Bobrowsky, International Director, CGC Alan Morgan, Administration Director, CGC Micki Allen, KEGS (Canadian Exploration Geophysical Society) Antoni Lewkowicz, Committees Director, CGC Jean-François Couture, Geological Association of Canada Ron Clowes, Lithoprobe Brian Fryer, Mineralogical Association of Canada Ron McMillan, Financial Director, CGC Dirk Tempelman-Kluit, President, CGC Kelin Wang, Canadian Geophysical Union Bob McNutt, Past-President, CGC John Gartner, Business Manager, CGC Ian Thomson, Guest representing the CNC-IUGS
Regrets, Absent	PDAC (Mary-Claire Ward) Canadian Society of Coal and Organic Petrology Canadian Council of Chairs of Earth Science Departments Committee of Provincial Geologists Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Geological Society Canadian National Chapter of International Association of Hydrogeologists Canadian Society of Exploration Geophysicists Canadian Well Logging Society Canadian Council of professional Geoscientists
Agenda Items
Welcome Introductions	*** Denotes Action Items The President welcomed the participants and the agenda was approved with the change that discussions of international issues would be moved up on the agenda to follow item 3, Call for Annual Reports input.
Minutes and Action Items From the 101st Council meeting in Regina	Paul Robinson moved acceptance of the minutes and Réjean Couture seconded the motion. The action items are numbered in the minutes of the 101st meeting, and these numbers are referenced here: Gartner could not make contact with MAC or CAPP Not completed and this should be revisited This will be covered under discussion on issues Done Alan Morgan to follow-up on this *** Done Done. Done. Dan Smith to provide John Gartner with web site list of geographers.*** Not done, and Gartner should follow-up.*** Some discussions have taken place, but Réjean Couture will state position at next CGC meeting*** Done. No response from Hugh Miller Done Done Not Done. Will be discussed under agenda item issues Done Done, but no response from membership Done Only 2 responses from members Done. Will consider re-joining in 2000 Done Dirk Tempelman-Kluit to do.*** Not done, too late now. Not done and not considered necessary
Call for Annual Report Inputs	Alan Morgan reported that he has only received 4 or 5 reports so far. When all are received, Alan will compose the 1999 annual report of CGC onto the CGC web page. Ron Clowes distributed 10 copies of the 1998-2000 progress report for Lithoprobe. Anyone wanting a copy should contact Ron at clowes@lithoprobe.ubc.ca
Discussion of International Status	The President had written a letter to NRCan, asking if in their block funding support of the CGC, they required that specific funds be forwarded to support Canadian international activities on behalf of the government. The response to this letter was that NRCan did not require any specific funds to be forwarded to fund Canadian international activities, but trusted that the CGC would continue to support such activities at some level. The letter was read to Council. The International Director, then described the funding for the International Global Correlation Program (IGCP) and the International Union of Geological Societies (IUGS). At present the CGC funds the Canadian participation in IUGS ($CDN22K) and the IGCP ($CDN20K) approximately. An annual report is prepared by the International Director describing the international activities. The International director also provided a brief to member societies after the Regina meeting of Council, and the President thanked the Director for this initiative. Some discussion ensued about this financial support. It was pointed out that the CGC has continued to support the international activities at the same level for years, while its support from NRCan has decreased from $120K to $70K, and while the value of the Canadian dollar also continued to decline. Ian Thomson, representing the CNC-IUGS was asked by the International director to address the Council and provide some background on the funding issue. Ian reported that in 1987 the GSC paid the international funds directly. Then in 1988 there was a change, and through a gentlemen's agreement, CGC was designated to pay these funds with money forwarded by the GSC. Canadian membership provides a route for Canadians to participate on international committees. Our current level of participation in IUGS at Level 7 gives Canada a number of votes and also, in the past, has allowed Canadians to play a significant role in IUGS. At present, IUGS is entering a period of change, and it really needs the support of Canada. Any reduction in our level of support will adversely affect our voting level and the reorganization of the Union. After Ian's presentation, a discussion took place, dealing with the pros and cons of maintaining the present level of support at level 7 within IUGS. It was expressed that this international issue was quite contentious, and was taking a lot of time and energy by Council, and that it was very divisive. With the above in mind, a motion was put forward by Peter Bobrowsky and seconded by Alan Morgan, to the effect that the CGC would continue to support international activities as long as NRCan provided their level of support to CGC. The wording was debated and many positions were articulated. In light of these discussions, the original motion was redrafted as follows: The Canadian Geoscience Council will maintain its current level of financial participation in international activities for this year and will undertake a review of this participation and revisit the situation annually. The Chair asked for a vote on the motion, and it was passed with 13 voting yes, 1 voting against and 1 abstention. (Note, member societies with more than 1000 members have two votes. At this meeting the MAC and the GAC had two votes each, the rest of the members one vote each). The International Director tabled his annual report. No discussion ensued.
Financial Future of CGC	The Financial Director gave out the unaudited, year-to-date actual and annual (approved) budgets. From April 1/99 to December 31/99, Council had received $52,449.54 in revenue ($35K still to be received from NRCan). This included $7066 from membership dues and $2000 from provincial governments, plus interest and publication recoveries. Expenses totaled $94,891.09, including $65,100.25 for operating expenses (including $41252.38 for Business Manager's Office), $16,304.39 for international and $13,486.45 for other expenses (including costs of mineral deposits Review). This has resulted in a [$42,441.55] loss for the period, compared with a budgeted loss of $72,500 for the entire budgeting period. It was pointed out that the "budget planner"- that was sent to all member societies, to allow them to voice their opinions on the budget- was only returned by two people. Thus, the Board did not have any input on Council's opinions regarding the financial future of the Council. It was pointed out that the budget planner balanced the budget within 3 years, but this required a substantial rise in fees and the raising of other funds. Having just agreed to maintain the international funding at its present level, it is imperative that Council has a plan to raise more revenue. The President emphasized the Council members must make a commitment to new funding for the Council, if the Council is to survive in the future. As a start, he suggested that the revenue goal of receiving $2.50/individual in each member society be debated and approved by this Council. Today, fees are calculated as follows: For societies under 1000 people, they pay $200 plus $0.50/member. For societies over 1000, they pay $450 plus $0.50/member The Financial Director indicated that with a new funding formula, there should be a new voting arrangement, whereby societies would receive one vote per dollar paid in dues. That would mean that if a society paid $2000 in dues, then they would have 2000 votes. Others said that this could put the very large societies in control of the Council, and it was suggested that the number of votes should be the square root of the dollars paid. As an example, if the above society paid $2000 in dues that their vote would be the square root of 2000 = 45 votes rather than 2000 votes. There was general agreement that this would be the fairest way to proceed. The President then asked each Society representative to state the position of their society on the dues issues, and particularly respond to the email sent out prior to the meeting that asked for comments on the following three questions. 1) Should CGC continue with a full time Executive Director, or 2) with a part time Executive Director, or 3) should the CGC fold. Here are the responses: CGS: Did not consider 3) at all, but supported 2). Should consider a virtual office. No problem with supporting a raise in dues in general, but concern with amount. Every effort should be made to minimize costs much below those shown in budget planner, and a commitment made by CGC to lower expenses. AEG: AEG is international with 1000 worldwide members, and will balk at a raise in fees, especially if it is applied to all members. (It was stated that AEG only pays on Canadian membership, and thus the resistance to a raise was softened.) AEG not that interested in the vote. CAG: The CAG is in financial difficulty, with only 125 members. The Canadian Geomorphology Research Group is another group that maybe should be approached. It was shown that with 125 members, the net raise in fees over the old system would only be minimal. When this was pointed out, there was agreement with the proposed raise. CANQUA: CANQUA feels that a $5.00 raise is unacceptable, but a $2.50 is acceptable, as long as CGC reduces expected costs considerably. KEGS: A $2.50 raise would be acceptable, but not a $5.00 raise. GAC: GAC agrees that a significant fee increase is needed, and they support this, but they maintain that CGC must make significant changes. From a practical viewpoint, the raise in fees will not be able to be passed onto the membership until 2001, because of logistics, and GAC Executive does not have money in budget to bridge this time period. In summary, GAC would support a fee of $2.50 as long as CGC will show that it has changed and can show benefits of belonging to CGC. MAC: Supports the $2.50 fee, but CGC must evaluate where the Council is going. What is the future strategy? CGU: The representative was instructed by his Executive not to vote at this CGC meeting, giving the CGU more time to consider its future with CGC. Their concern is the problem with CGC communication its relevance to individual members. Also, there is a significant budget issue with CGU. Their internal fee is only $30, and thus a CGC fee raise to $2.50 or $5.00 is very big. However, CGU fully supports the work of CGC and knows that geoscience in Canada needs one voice. Their next meeting is in May. ESS/GSC): If votes are to be rearranged and one vote per dollar considered, then ESS which contributes by far the most to CGC must have some kind of vote at the table. There ensued a general discussion on the fee increase issue. Points discussed included; the continued funding of ESS (its in the budget); be careful not to frighten away new members because of the cost; what about the problem of "double dipping", whereby one member might be paying through 2 or more societies (to be discussed after census); don?t lose initiative to set out ambitious goals that all geoscientists become members, in say, 5 years; fee could be a tax, and made proportional (generally thought not a viable idea); critical that CCPG be brought on board. The following motion was moved by Jean-François Couture (GAC)and seconded by Brian Fryer (MAC) Move that whereas the Canadian Geoscience Council (CGC) will move in the 3 year term to have every practicing geoscientist in Canada become a member of CGC through one or another of its member societies, or otherwise, that the membership fees per individuals belonging to the member societies of CGC be increased to $2.50. The president called for a vote, and it carried with 14 in favour, none against and one abstention. The Financial Director was instructed to implement the fee increase.*** The Financial Director, with the help of the Business Manager was to produce another budget in light of the above discussions
Nomination Committee Report	Bob McNutt reported that he had nominations for two positions, as follows: President-Elect: Jeremy Hall Financial Director: Gilles Arseneau It was moved by Bob McNutt and seconded by Réjean Couture: that these two nominees be elected to these vacant positions, with the term for each to begin at the June meeting of Council in Calgary. The vote was called and it was unanimous, with one abstention. After a brief discussion, it was decided that the position of Administration Director should be continued until the role of the new Executive Director is finalized. Any decisions should be put off until later.
Future of Executive Director's Office	A general discussion was held about the type of future Executive Director that was required, whether this be a full time position or a part time position or one filled by a retired volunteer. One point made was that it would be impossible for a part time volunteer to do the Executive Director work. However, a full time position would likely be too expensive, and the sense of Council was that it would be quite possible to significantly cut costs and still get the job done. Another comment was that Council should not run at a deficit again. Although it was previously agreed to run down the capital, that this should minimized, and that a plan was needed for the future. Other members said that now was the time to invest in the future, and if this drew down the capital, it would be worth it if the CGC succeeded. A rough financial model was used as the basis for further discussion, as follows: Revenue $100K Costs: International Commitment $45K Other Commitments $15K Operating Costs $40K Cost Total $100K In this scenario, the budget is balanced, with $100K of revenue, but can we sustain an active secretariat for $40k? The thought was that this might be difficult, in view of the experiences of other organizations, even with a virtual office and a part time Director. If the operating costs were increased to, say, $85K, then with only a $100K revenue stream, there would be a loss of $45K, which would have to come out of capital. It was thought that a reasonable solution could be found, bearing in mind that the deficit should be as low a figure as possible, while still meeting the goals of an active secretariat. The Financial Director, with the help of the Business Manger were asked to prepare a new budget based on the above assumptions and circulate to Council via email for approval before the June meeting.*** The subject of a management team was raised. Evidently, the American Geophysical Association, south of the border, has just recently hired a management team to run their affairs. This team, from a consulting company, takes over all of the management and administrative duties, including fund raising for a set monthly or annual fee. Micki Allen, John Gartner and Bob McNutt were asked to investigate this concept and report to Council.***
Review of Issues	The Issues Director briefly reviewed the status of different issues as follows: GAPS Seminar: On Friday, January 28th at the BC&Yukon Chamber of Mines Board room, 22 people participated in this seminar. Presentations were made outlining some of the skills requirements and human resources gaps in the geosciences. Conclusions and action items resulting from the seminar were: There is a lack of solid information to in fact determine if there are capacity or knowledge gaps Suspect that there might be an age related gap A comprehensive survey should be organized, and the forthcoming geoscience census is a start There should be a comprehensive Strategic Plan for the Earth Sciences across Canada There should be more Public Awareness and also continue to see that Earth Sciences are taught in the schools.The MAC / CGU / CANQUA / GAC should nominate an individual to develop terms of reference for a strategic plan for geosciences for Canada for the GeoCanada 2000 meetings. Brian Fryer agreed to lead this initiative and Richard Grieve to advise.*** PAGSE: CGC continues to support this group that brings science-related issues to parliamentarians. Research Funding: The abstracts for the special session at GeoCanada 2000 on Research are due 31 January 2000. Data Bases: A continuing check should be kept on this issue.Scoping Papers: Scoping papers that have been received include, Geoscience Education Climate Change CCPG / CCCESD Mapping of Canada Marine Geoscience/ ODP The paper on water has not yet been done. There was a brief discussion on the Geoscience Education paper, which CGEN has fully accepted. It was noted that GEOSCIED IV will be held in Canada in 2003 and Alan Morgan is on the Executive.
Census	There was no feedback on the census questionnaire. The next step is to design the actual form of the questionnaire and produce a budget for the completion of the census exercise. It was suggested that a separate card be included to ask people if they would send their email address to a list server so that CGC could obtain a means of directly communicating with individual geoscientists through this list server. John Gartner and Alan Morgan will proceed with the final design and distribution plans for the census, to take place in the fall of 2000.***
Next Meeting	GAC was asked if there was a date during GeoCanada 2000 when a CGC meeting was less likely to interfere with a GAC meeting. It was pointed out that GAC has appointed the past president to attend CGC meetings, and that a conflict was not a problem. It was tentatively decided that the following meeting date should be considered and will be confirmed. They will take place in Calgary at the end of GeoCanada 2000. Board of Directors: Afternoon of Friday, June 2, 2000 Council Meeting: Saturday, June 3, 2000 and the 4th if required. The fall meeting was tentatively set for Ottawa in either late September or late October, 2000.
Adjournment	Bob McNutt moved that the meeting adjourn at about 5:00 p.m.

CGC Home Page