SAC Meeting Minutes - September 20, 2024

Present:

Regret:

Norma Domey - SP - Chair & Board Liaison
Terri D’Souza - CFIA - Member

Lawrence Mak - NRC - RORCO - Member

Matthew MacLeod - RE - Member

Violina Lozeva-Thomas - SP - Friend of the Committee

Lionel Siniyunguruza - Staff Support

Ho Yin (Stanley) Poon - RE - Friend of the Committee

Alebachew Demoz - RE - Friend of the Committee

Ira Hill - SP - Member

Guests:

No guests.

1.Call to Order 

The meeting was called to order. The agenda was adopted with the following changes:

• Review of previous meeting (minutes and action items) removed from list as previous minutes are not ready.

Even though the minutes weren't available, the actions items were listed from the previous meeting.

• Lionel: send email to the SAC group to get ideas for the AGM (done)
• Lionel: request booth for AGM (done)
• Matt: see who attended training and what was the criteria
• Lionel: SAC email list - to see who was in it and when they joined
• Lionel: contact Mona Nemer’s office about Governance meeting date, which was meant to be in August
• Lionel: present preliminary report on the Science Survey results (will be discussed later in this meeting)
• Ira: review EDIA language in the strategic plan

2.Business arising from previous meeting

Scientific Integrity (SI) Steward training update from Matt. 

Training goals:

• What is scientific integrity and why does it matter?
• Overview of scientific integrity policies and the right to express
• Scientific integrity trends in our departments/agencies and workplaces
• How to apply the policy and bring complaints forward
• Holding our employers accountable
• Building solidarity with members around scientific integrity
• Strategies for advancing scientific integrity through stewarding, consultation, etc.

Chair noted that most attendees would have received an email about registering for training and hoped that most attendees would have registered. The (virtual) training will take place on the Fridays of October (English, 11th and 18th ; French 25th). 

3.New Business

Science member survey (Survey of Federal Scientists 2024)

This is a preliminary report for a survey (drafted by non-scientists) sent to around 2000 scientists among the public service. Survey explores job satisfaction and resource allocation and whether current scientists would recommend their agency to young workers. It also looks at the changes to science capacity in the agency, trends in funding (and effects), personal capacity, leadership effectiveness. Survey looks at professional development support, satisfaction with use of scientific evidence and freedom to publish research without interference. Survey also looks at sharing science with the public, government interference and the impacts of COVID. The survey/presentation will eventually be put online. Committee members are asked to review the survey (the responses but also the questions themselves) to further work out relevant questions and deal with certain issues. (Deadline to return input is a week from meeting)

Results highlights (note that detailed results are being withheld until communicated broadly to members and the public):

• Various questions: general discontent with resources and feeling of being under-resourced, not enough time for training, hesitancy/fear to take time for professional development, uncertainty regarding career advancement. However, a majority of respondents feel they are recognized by their superiors and that they are given autonomy in their role.  
• Further developing those ideas, there is general skepticism about consistency of decisions made with scientific knowledge and uncertainty about review/decision-making processes (though confidence in the science itself).
• Questions about being able to communicate freely and having work used by others effectively. A significant number (of those for whom the questions were applicable) felt constrained in how they communicate externally. A high number of not applicable responses could indicate outreach issues but also there are certain cases where for security/intelligence reasons, people cannot speak freely. A breakdown by department might be more useful, or somehow making a distinction between general information and some information should remain secret (or splitting between e.g., REs and RCOs who have publication in their career progression frameworks?). 
• Freedom to share scientific work with the public. There was a comment here to leave out NA responses for these questions, as it’s mainly noise and can skew interpretation.
• Where did interference of work come from. There’s a comment that the percentage is not the only issue; any interference from politically-appointed staff could be an issue but also this depends on departments. 
• Questions about interference/actions relating to risks to public and whistleblowers: desire for more funding and strengthening of whistleblower protections; there may be some department culture to look at - there is concern over political interference. Another comment that there is a mix of positively-framed and negatively-framed questions, which can be confusing. 
• COVID impacts: majority of respondents felt impacts had been positively managed, though concern about funding reductions. It was noted that it’s very positive that a majority of respondents didn’t feel pressure to reduce quality during the pandemic.
• Type of science survey: ~70% of work is applied science. It was noted that there was no category for regulatory science. Also, there was a category for data science, which doesn’t always correspond to employer classification standards.
• Gender: potential decrease in number of women, but this could be captured in “Prefer not to say”. It was noted that some people didn’t finish the survey (clumsy and verbose question). Bargaining units have more comprehensive data on gender but for this survey, there are confounding factors that make conclusions difficult. 

A comment was made that, while PIPSC has been working on advocacy that seems to be overall negative towards Artificial Intelligence (AI), the results from the survey show that there are many scientists who are ambivalent or even positive towards it. Action Item: Norma to talk to John Anderson about having more of a science perspective on PIPSC AI approach.

Another comment was made on how the data was displayed. There were a few cases where pie charts were used, where bar charts or tables would work better to visualize the data. Also, some of the questions asked members to agree on a positive comment, others a negative comment. This means that the Agree-Disagree scale needs to be flipped (or the questions reworded) to make it easier to quickly interpret the data. Action item: Lionel to look into how data is displayed.   

It was noted that some “don’t know/not applicable/prefer not to say” responses could impact the interpretation of the other responses. Also, these responses are difficult to analyze as they could result from confusion over categories in a question, or even “protest” at a perceived unsuitability of a question.

It was noted the nature of regulatory science is such that several questions were inapplicable. The next survey should aim to have better questions for that group. It could also ask (when talking about interference to work) whether members had been pressured to change their methodology (not just results).

It was noted that the feedback was very useful to bring a more scientific lens to the survey. Some of the questions could be reformulated to better capture information and to reflect the breadth of science work done in the public service. 

2024 AGM SAC Subcommittee

A call was put out to gather interest in joining the AGM subcommittee. About 10 members were interested and met the day before to see what could happen at the AGM booth (2 each of table, laptops, monitors) and how to promote science and the work of the SAC. The Subcommittee is doing research on developing a water bottle with a SAC logo (depending on budget). Other ideas include a QR-code linking to a survey and having a video playing in the background at the booth. 

Science Integrity Governance Committee

It has been difficult to organize meetings with all involved. SAC is trying to get official minutes; PIPSC doesn’t want a completely new version of the Model Policy (2.0), rather to improve the existing version. Action item: Lionel to contact Pierre Villon to see if there is any further information. Matt suggested reaching out to ministers who might be (given current electoral climate) more disposed to follow up with meetings. Action: Matt to draft letter to ministers. 

4.Regional Reports on Science Activities

BC and Yukon (Terri) - BC Yukon Steward Council will be held on Oct 18-19 in Vancouver. There are over 120 stewards attending as of the meeting date. BC-Yukon Regional report had low participation. IT Group: technical switch (telephony?) work is being done by outsourced technicians and members would like training to do the work themselves. Also RTO measures have caused concern. 

Atlantic (Lawrence) - Atlantic Steward Council will be held on October 25-26. NRC does not yet have their PIPSC Consultation President. The SAC Committee Report to Stewards report purpose was clarified - it is more for informing/promoting rather than receiving input. 

Prairies and NWT  - Official representative not present. Chair encouraged unofficial gathering of feedback as well, to support more official channels. 

Quebec () - Not present

Ontario () - Not present

NCR (Matt) - Performance Measurement Strategy Policy (DnD) is being looked at. There were concerns about who one has to report to. Otherwise, RTO concerns are common among members as well. Yearly Performance Reporting is meant to be shared with (among others) PIPSC but the method of input (webforms for Chief Scientists Office) means that often PIPSC does not get information.

Pension plan and fossil fuels presentation

Why PIPSC must call on Public Service Pension Plan to divest from fossil fuel investments. Chair specified that this initiative started as an individual measure, not officially coming from PIPSC. The call is for PSP to match many other pension funds in this regard. As retirement funds deal with huge amounts of money, tackling climate change requires their investments in positive measures. These funds have a fiduciary duty to their members (from youngest to oldest); there is strong growth in climate-conscious business. So far, PSP is making some progress but fails in many areas including greenwashing and stakes in fossil fuel companies. Studies have shown that phasing out measures and other (legal or otherwise) are the most effective in changing behaviour. Studies also show that phasing out can (eventually) lead to greater profits for pension funds.

It was noted that PSP might not be moving further into this regard due to corporate inertia and misplaced fears of losing profits. This fear is sometimes present with members; Chair called for input on how to reach these members. 

The resolution text has “whereas” clauses that point to the issues mentioned above, with 2 specific resolutions - one general resolution and a more specific one, to ensure success of at least part of the resolution. 

Be it resolved that PIPSC will send an open letter to the Public Service Pension Investment Board calling on them to investigate environmentally sustainable alternatives to fossil fuel investments and to make the findings public within two years. 

Be it further resolved that the letter be accompanied by a media release requisition the Public Service Pension Investment Board develop credible science-based transition plans for all carbon-intensive assets, adopt a carbon emissions reduction target of 50 percent by 2030, and commit the pension portfolio to carbon neutrality by 2040, including an accompanying plan to ensure the financially prudent decarbonization of the portfolio that will be posted on the PIPSC website.

It is noted that PSP has an environmental section, and that investigation may have been done. The language could be specified to say that action is being taken but not enough. Also, two of the “whereas” clauses are somewhat contradictory (either no impact, or positive impact but not both). Action: Norma to tighten the wording on this.

Planning for next meeting - 

Next full meeting at the end of November but there should be a subcommittee meeting before the national AGM (8-9 Nov 2024). At the AGM, there will be two booths (SI and SAC committee). Confirmation that (to date) Nov 29 would be a suitable date, with quorum. 

New QC member, Nate (?). Transitioning from being a Friend of the Committee to being a member. Action: Pawan to follow up on the new member. And also to set up event so it can be put into calendars. 

5.Round table

Terri - Upcoming steward council. Next year, the Steward Council would put Committee Reports into the Council meeting. 

Matt - RE Group Executive will have a meeting in Edmonton and will visit PIPSC sites there. There will be outreach meetings, and SP members will be invited.

Lawrence - no additional updates.

Violina - confirmation that her and her colleagues are back into the office 3 days a week. This is presenting significant administrative hassle as the workplace location has changed and staff have to pre-book office space. Also, there are costs associated with parking. There is pressure to be “a good example” of 3-day in-office practice.

Alebachew - nothing to report.

6.Reiterate Action Items

• Survey: incorporate changes based on comments 
• Survey: send survey slides to members and ask for feedback (which slides can be removed for general audience presentation)
• Lionel to follow with Pierre Villon for SI Committee updates
• Norma to ask John Anderson about AI presentations having more of a science lens
• Matt to draft letter to present to PM/other ministers about SI Committee 
• Norma: draft report for PIPSC AGM. Norma would like to add more environmental focus (to compare data on emissions cost of AGM across years)

7.Closing comments and Adjournment

Norma said that she is happy to give presentations on PSPP to various groups to help disseminate the information widely and help change opinions. 

Violina suggested having an app that calculates carbon footprint for travelling to AGM. Also, ServicePlus offers discounts for some travel options.