PIPSC Science Advisory Committee (SAC)
Date: September 5, 2025
Place: Hybrid
Meeting time: 9:00 AM—5:00 PM ET
Meeting minutes taken by: Marielle Nadon
| Present: | Regret: |
Matthew (Matt) MacLeod – RE – NCR – Chair Terri D’Souza – CFIA-S&A – B.C. – Yukon – Member Caroline Levasseur – SP – QC – Member Foster Scott – CFIA-VM – ONT – Member M. Rokib Hassan – NCR-RO/RCO – NCR – Member Anna-Belle Filion – SP – Quebec – Friend of the Committee Lionel Siniyunguruza – PIPSC – Staff Resource Marielle Nadon – PIPSC – Staff Resource | Ira Hill – SP – Prairies, NWT – Member Timothy McKay – CP – Board Liaison Robert Lambert (Rob) – SP – ATL – Member |
| Guests: | |
| Michael Urminsky- National Policy Team Lead, PIPSC Staff Ryan Campbell – Research Team Lead, PIPSC Staff Eric Hortop – RE – NCR |
| 1. Call to Order & agenda |
| Matt welcomes all the SAC members and guests. Each member/guest introduces themselves and their work. Anna-Belle Filion has accepted a role of Friend of the Committee and is joining the meeting for the first time. Matt moves the agenda, seconded by Terri. The agenda is approved by all without changes. |
| 2. Previous meeting minutes and business arising |
| Matt presents the meeting minutes and everyone reviews them. Minutes accepted by everyone. Marielle to send them to the PIPSC translation team. |
| 3. Update on Scientific Integrity online training |
| Matt explains that a virtual scientific integrity training for stewards has been offered for two years. The first year (3 sessions) was focused on science and research group members. Last year it was opened to a wider group of stewards and staff members. According to the feedback received, a self paced online course would probably be appreciated. The PIPSC staff who was working on this course unfortunately left, another person from the Education section is now working on it. The course will cover, among other things, protection against interference, correct attribution and ensuring that scientists and researchers have a voice in how their findings are being interpreted and recommunicated by other people within the department. Matt presents the storyboard of the course to other members of the Committee, highlighting the key points. During the conversation following Matt’s presentation, it has been brought that in the scientific integrity policies it is mentioned that ‘PCH will encourage the development and implementation of a science integrity mentorship program for researchers and scientists, whereby mentors exhibiting exemplary science virtues in their conduct and work are paired with more junior employees.’ which has not been implemented. The Committee would like to push forward for it to happen. |
| 4. Scientific Integrity and the Working Group on Consultation (Michael Urminsky) |
| The consultation team is a group of stewards who engage in discussion, offer advice, debate and receive information from the employer. The working group on consultation brings together all the presidents of each consultation group. Michael suggests that it’s a good opportunity to remind them of Scientific Integrity and would like the feedback of the SAC Committee on it. Matt explains that, contrary to the policy outlined below, it is rare for departments to report to a PIPSC consultant. ‘ To this end and in consultation with PIPSC representatives, PCH will develop and deploy transparent and systematic mechanisms and procedures for:7.7.1. Gathering, evaluating and incorporating scientific advice into the PCH policy and regulatory decision-making process.7.7.2. Engaging employees in the design, development, and evaluation of robust and resilient research programs that will be able to meet the research needs of the future.7.7.3. Identifying and prioritizing areas of federal authority for which the current federal science or research capacity is inadequate or where federal investment in research and development is likely to provide substantial benefits to the Canadian population.’Caroline adds that at NRCAN,the security comes first and they know what they can and cannot say publicly. Michael points that there are often no scientists or researchers on the consulting team, resulting in misrepresentation. Sometimes these teams are dominated by other classifications that don’t have scientific integrity as part of their collective agreement. He is also wondering if these teams have a way to communicate with those scientists/researchers if there are no stewards representing them. He is wondering if we should encourage consultation presidents to start establishing a relationship with scientific integrity leads. Lionel is leading meetings called Scientific Integrity Focal Point (SI Focal Point). Michael mentions that we may benefit in encouraging stewards to attend these in order to have a better knowledge of Scientific Integrity.Michael will draft a presentation for the Working Group on Consultation and share it with the SAC for their input. Lionel to share it with the SI Focal Point Group. Matt would like to be invited to the next Working Group meeting – Michael will look into that with his colleagues. |
| 5. Update on communications plan for science survey (Ryan Campbell & Lionel) |
| The plan was to have something in hand that is polished for a tri-party meeting with OXA and the Treasury Board and a broader release in the fall. PIPSC graphic designers will review some graphics and tables in the document to make it look more professional. They need to take into consideration the possible fallout of the next budget (mid-October) and how impactful it is going to be. Ryan would like for the SAC members to review the draft Lionel made and give their thoughts. |
| 6. SciSBC interaction (Eric Hortop) |
6.1 Big Issues Eric would like the following point to appear on the survey:MuzzelingAttendance to the fieldTravel (spending caps and approval)Research continuityAccess to IT resource computing software Transparency around professional development requestsAdmin burden 6.2 Visibility items & AGM Planning They are looking for Earth hot/cold packs (for larger groups), heat sensitive pencils (for mass distribution) and lab coats (for executive members) as visibility items. Eric has made a table of how many each of items would be necessary along with the total price. Distribution point would be the SAC booth at PIPSC AGM. Slogan: Strong Science, Strong Economy, Strong Canada (in both official languages). Three parties will contribute to the total amount: SP, RE and the SAC Committee. Eric to send the breakdown to Rokib, who will approach the NRC-RO/RCO group to see if they want to participate money wise. Matt to send the breakdown of cost to the group’s president for their final approval and then to John Purdie. Terri to put together a survey to know the size required for lab coats. |
| 7. Round Table & Next Meeting |
Caroline: Their Stewards Council will be on September 13th. They will innovate and offer peer training. She will personally give a formation on constructive conflict resolutions. She works with NR CAN groups as they have conflict regarding career progression. Terri: They are busy with the 2025 Stewards Council on October 17th and 18th. Around 200 PIPSC stewards are supposed to join. Training sessions and guest speakers are on the agenda. Rokib: Not much update. Foster: He is on parental leave and has not much to add for the moment. Anna-Belle: There is an issue in her field of work (meteorologist) as they aren’t researchers and therefore, have trouble accessing training. With AI, many meteorologists have problems keeping up and understanding this new technology and don’t have access to training. The next meeting is to be half day on November 7, 2025 and to be held virtually only. |
8. Meeting Adjourned. Action Items: |