Reader Rebuttal (January 01, 2007)
Why there’s a talent shortage
I have just finished reading your article, “Mining’s war for talent” (CMJ December 2006). It makes my blood boil to read yet another article complaining about the employee shortage in the mining profession and NOT ONE article ever written about “why” the industry is in this situation. I have attended many conventions, heard speakers make similar comments and not one person has admitted that it is the industry itself to blame for getting to this point, because of the way the previous generation was treated. Those of you who are in their early 50s know exactly what I am talking about.
I am the wife of a geologist, one of the few marriages that has lasted 25 years (so far), and am the perfect person to answer the question, “Why does the younger generation have no desire to enter the mining profession?” Can you blame them, after all their fathers (and some mothers) have been through in the last 25 years?
Why does no one talk about the truth: that entering the mining field means constantly uprooting the family and often living in remote communities, or always traveling and usually absent from important family celebrations; that this is an unstable profession and that you could be without work in the blink of an eye, if the markets fall?
No one talks about the injustices done to the previous generation with mergers, mass lay-offs, with geologists (those who have persisted for the love of their profession) forced to work as “consultants” because there was no permanent work to find in the 1980s and ’90s. I recall many of my husbands’ colleagues–bright, hard-working geologists–desperately seeking work in the early ’80s and finally changing careers.
I have seen my own husband, when he was in his 30s, press on, determined to make it in this field and always ending up with “contract” work. That is how we passed our first 15 years of marriage. In those days, geologists had to become their own businessmen, forming registered companies, learning to become their own secretary, drafts-person and salesman. In addition, they were forced to deal with companies who hired only “contract” geologists. Eventually, I saw my husband make the decision to form his own company to finally find stability and commitment in ONE company. Now, in his early 50s, he is reaping the financial rewards as VP of his own publicly traded company. He no longer has to work for any one else, even though his vast experience is sought out worldwide. THAT is the position the industry has forced him into. What sweet revenge!
Now you tell me, if you are a young, intelligent person and have watched your dad or mom go through such sacrifices, would you want to enter the same field? The answer is a definite “No”, no matter what the salary is! I have yet to meet one son or daughter from a mining family, who has wanted that same career. Now, 30 years later, the industry asks why they can’t find enough bright, intelligent professionals. Well, I hate to say this, but YOU’VE ASKED FOR IT!
Stop treating geologists and other mining-related professionals like disposable computers, to be used only for their brains and then discarded. As they say, “What goes around, comes around.”
Rosanna Condina
Val d’Or, Que.
Governments need to define Aboriginal rights
I read your editorial (CMJ December 2006) today with great interest, having just returned from a meeting of the Minister’s Mining Act Advisory Committee in Toronto. The MMAAC is a multi-stakeholder committee formed after the introduction of Ontario’s new Mining Act in 1990. The committee advises the Minister on revisions to the Act, as well as other matters. I have been a member (past chair) of this committee since its inception. At our meeting on Wednesday, a new Ontario government initiative was introduced whereby a new set of guidelines for negotiations with Aboriginal communities will be created in an attempt to improve relations between Aboriginal communities and the exploration/mining industries.
Ontario is sorely in need of a solution to the ongoing conflicts between resource industries and Aboriginal communities. The present system, however, places the onus of reconciliation on individual companies rather than government. This situation places the companies in a very uncertain position, regardless of how conscientiously they approach the consultation process. There have been some successes where Impact Benefit Agreements have resulted in approvals of development, but these agreements have placed a new fiscal burden on these companies and have set precedents and expectations that operators at the early stages of development find difficult to live up to.
The reason these IBAs have been negotiated in Ontario is because there is no agreement between the Aboriginal community and either the provincial or federal governments on resource revenue sharing. Both levels of government have failed to create a climate of secure tenure for mining property holders, leaving companies and investors at the mercy of Aboriginal approval, with no enforceable legal recourse. Even Ontario Geological Survey staff have been asked to leave areas where they were conducting mapping surveys because they didn’t have the approval of the local Aboriginal community. A new set of guidelines for negotiations alone will, in my opinion, do little to alleviate these problems despite the best intentions of the proponent. Negotiations between developers and nearby stakeholders should always be a part of project planning, but should take place in a framework of law where all parties have clearly defined rights and obligations. This is not the case in Ontario at present.
It is time for both the provincial and federal governments to step up to the plate and resolve this climate of uncertainty. Not only mining but also hydro and forestry projects have been put on hold because of the lack of a comprehensive Resource Revenue Sharing Agreement with the Aboriginal community. Such an agreement, based on other successful models such as the “Paix des Braves” in Quebec, could open up northern Ontario to a variety of new economic development projects that would benefit everyone. Under such an agreement, government(s) would disburse tax revenues to local communities, freeing individual developers from the burden of high negotiation costs, uncertainty of tenure and additional operating costs.
A paper prepared by Aboriginal Relations Consulting of Ottawa for the Prospectors & Developers Association of Canada (“Mapping the road ahead: Finding common ground on resource revenue sharing” accessible at www.pdac.ca/pdac/advocacy/aboriginal-affairs/index.html) recommends that the mining industry should align themselves with the Aboriginal community, to lobby both levels of government to get started on the road toward a permanent resolution to the resource access issue, in consultation with both the Aboriginal community and resource industries. Opportunity is knocking – we need to open the door to the North.
Michael Leahy, president
Raven Resources Inc.
Swastika, Ont.
Comments