GUEST COLUMN (June 15, 1992)

What would you have if you had “hydrothermal gold-molybdenum deposition resulting from exsolution of volatile phases from a felsic magma with attendant alteration and brecciation”?

The answer is, one of Canada’s largest, richest gold deposits: the Hemlo deposit in northern Ontario.

To the average Canadian, framing the question in this manner has little meaning. And yet, bridging the gap between geoscientists and the general public, which pays the salaries of government and academic geologists from coast to coast, is an important issue.

There is a seemingly immense gulf between the piper’s knowledge and the practicality of that knowledge to the people who pay the piper. The recent annual gathering here of two of the country’s pre-eminent geological institutions — the Geological Association of Canada (GAC) and the Mineralogical Association of Canada (MAC) — addressed this issue. The anatomy of the Hemlo deposit was one of the many fascinating geological topics discussed by more than 800 geologists who met on the campus of Acadia University. Attendance was well above the level required for the meeting to break even financially.

Shrinking research budgets, a shift in emphasis from economic to environmental geology, the problem of attracting women to the profession and declining association membership were discussed.

Professional geologists are employed in Canada by industry, government mines ministries and university geology departments nationwide. One geologist is employed for roughly every 700 sq. km of Canadian terrain.

GAC and MAC, which depend heavily on volunteer work, meet once a year to present the results of their scientific work and to formally recognize their colleagues’ efforts.

In several ways, these are trying times for the two learned societies. Memberships are down (2,877 for GAC, off 138 from 1990, and 1,700 for MAC, off about 85 from last year).

Layoffs in the petroleum and mining industries and the advent of professional registration for practising geologists in many provinces are to blame. Not long ago, GAC membership was the only professional accreditation available to geologists. Competition from provincial licensing institutions seems to have shaken GAC from its ivory tower complacency.

“Many professional geologists find they cannot afford both professional registration and membership in GAC and MAC,” says the outgoing GAC president, J.G. Malpas.

Ian McIlreath of Petro-Canada in Calgary took over from Malpas at this year’s annual meeting.

McIlreath, Malpas and past president Jim Franklin are working together to make significant changes to the association.

“We are making an effort to try and understand the needs of our membership and have come up with a flexible selection of membership services which can be offered at a reasonable cost,” Malpas said.

A recent survey conducted by GAC showed most members do not want to receive The Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, which gobbles up about 60% of GAC’s $100 annual membership fee. This highly academic journal is published by the National Research Council and goes to readers worldwide.

The association’s council has decided to lower its membership fee to $65 and make subscriptions to the journal optional. It is not certain what effect this will have on the journal or its subscription rate.

GAC also publishes a newsletter three times per year titled Geolog and a monthly magazine titled Geoscience Canada.

The association netted about $16,000 on revenues of $500,000 in 1991. MAC’s mandate is simpler. It publishes Canadian Mineralogist exclusively, funded by a $50 annual membership fee and a 25% share of the profits from the GAC/MAC annual meeting. (The 1991 gathering in Toronto — the most successful to date — netted a total of $137,000.)

— Patrick Whiteway is the editor of Canadian Mining Journal.