Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll follow up with a very similar question, basically the same question I asked the minister. His answer was a good answer but I'm looking for an answer in a slightly different sense.
I asked before about the targeted geoscience initiative and I've asked before about the GEM program, $22 million over five years etc., the spending. Since I've worked in the field I do understand how difficult this is to evaluate. What I'm trying to figure out is this. How do we figure out our bang for our buck when we do programs like this, the targeted geoscience initiative, thematic programming, when we do mapping? I realize the length of time, believe me. Better than anyone else on this committee, I realize how long it takes to do. I realize why you have to do it as far as infrastructure goes, but when we look at the number and it's $22 million, we're supposed to consider whether that number should go up, go down, or stay where it is. How does the department figure out that we are getting this much return on investment x number of years in the future? How do they do that?
I mean, the minister quite accurately listed the papers, the geophysical surveys, all the research. I know the industry. PDAC loves the program, etc., but in the end it's not only about what you get out for papers, it's how much exploration money is invested in the country by the private sector, and really long-term down the line, how many mines are produced in the country.
It's very complex. I get that. But is there some way that the department tries to evaluate that from a really long-term perspective and say these $5 million a year really pay off in multiples because of x, y, and z?