SP Executive Meeting / Rencontre de l’exécutif SP

November 16, 2017 / 16 novembre, 2017

Presence / Absence --- Présences / Absences

Daniel Ingram (PRA/NWT – PRA/TNO) (Note, attended via conference call from 9-11am, 2-4pm)  P

 Norma Domey (NCR – RCN)  P

Elizabeth Ptasznik (PRA/NWT – PRA/TNO)  P

 Steven J. Colwell (BC/YUK – CB/YUK)  P

Enzo Barresi (ONT)  P

 Sushil S. Dixit (NCR – RCN)  A

Judith Leblanc (QUE)  A

 Tarek Salem (NCR – RCN) (left meeting at approximately 6pm)  P

Marcel C. Beaudoin (NCR – RCN)  P

 Thomas Landry (ATL)  P

Michael A. Forbes (ONT)  P

 Suzelle Brosseau (PIPSC – IPFPC)  P

Nicole Deschenes (PRA/NWT – PRA/TNO)  P

 Donald Lefebvre (NCR – RCN)  A

Special guest - Robert Macdonald for part of the afternoon

Opening of Meeting


●  Focus on bargaining

●  Need to look at how we are going to go forward in bargaining

●  Eye opener how close we are to starting bargaining

●  SP group main task is on bargaining

●  Everything we are discussing should be ensuring we are ready to start bargaining

○  (Secretary’s note - We in the phrase refers to SP Group Executive)

●  Also need to focus on our upcoming AGM

○  Need a strong plan in order to make sure everything is ready for our next AGM

■  (Secretary’s note - this is referring to proposed Bylaws, as well as timeline for call for delegates and publishing of proposed changes to Bylaws)


○  Review of motions today

○  Good opportunity to meet with our SP members over the weekend.

○  Youth (<40 ) symposium happening at Ramada today

○  Make sure SP group extends welcome to any SP members that are part of the youth symposium


●  New Business

○  None

●  MOTION - Approval of Agenda

○  See Appendix A for approved Agenda

○  Approved

●  MOTION - Approval of minutes from 22 September 2017

○  Approved

2018 SP Executive Election


●  Need to be organized ASAP with Election Committee

●  This will allow the choosing of next bargaining team

●  AGM a bit early this year

●  Appoint 3 member team (chair, 2 members), get them to present plan at January meeting as opposed to doing it in a SP Executive meeting


●  Only people not up for Election are eligible to be on the Elections committee


●  What’s involved in being part of Elections Committee?


●  Meet timeline, get everything in order

●  Make sure call for election, posting of candidate bios, etc is done in time and ensure that relevant Bylaws are followed

●  National pool election

●  Posting needs to explain difference between regions vs NCR

●  Receive candidacy forms

●  Go through motions of posting, getting them online


●  Willing to be on committee, not chair due to time required for prep of SP AGM


●  Will we be reducing Bylaws work to allow for the time spent on Election Committee?


●  Most work should be done by January.

●  Ideally vote should happen prior to SP AGM


●  Steve (and others on the Bylaws committee) needs to be free in case Bylaws get real busy.


Committee is Daniel (chair), Sushil and Marcel on the committee


ACTION - Committee will communicate via telephone and email to present elections proposal at January meeting

ACTION - Daniel to contact Enzo and Suzelle to consider the bargaining timelines as well as SP AGM timelines


●  No link between AGM/bargaining with election of new SP Electives


●  Is it possible to have people who are elected invited to the AGM as observers?


●  Might not be possible to have the election completed prior to the AGM due to timing.


●  Keep in mind previous discussion (22 september) on timelines for when new executive will take place. Was to be first exec meeting in fall.


●  Changing of the guard will take place after AGM. Incumbent will present their report.


●  Pressure from need to appoint Bargaining team. May need to do some appointments prior to the AGM. Will play it by ear as things evolve. Need to balance functioning of Exec as well as need for Bargaining

Orphaned Stewards


●  There are numerous stewards that do not belong to a subgroup. To attend AGM requires membership in a subgroup to attend. Decision who attends is rotated through subgroups. Thus, orphaned stewards can never attend SP AGMs. Proposal to allow 2 orphaned stewards a year to attend SP AGM. After talking with Dan, rewrite the selection method to pick who attends AGMs.


●  PIPSC has guidelines on delegate selection.


●  Review delegate selection bylaws to see if we can change it.


●  Need to revamp selection of delegates and allot specific budgetary amounts to allow for these orphaned stewards to attend.


●  Get Elizabeth to work with Michael to ensure the process decided by SP exec follows the process previously set out by PIPSC to avoid complaints.

●  Look at how we can use current policy that is in place to help orphaned members so they can attend.

●  Make a pitch to closest subgroup to send them as an observer.


●  Good time to review delegate policy from the standpoint of we have increased number of subgroups.

●  Challenge as regional rep is finding out where he is allowed to represent the region and what flexibility he has to send people /appoint people when he is not able to go. Not much freedom to appoint others as alternate.


●  Subgroup presidents would have a hard time selling picking someone not in their subgroup.


●  Intent to send a couple more people to SP AGM.

●  No need to use orphaned stewards as a driving force to change delegate selection. Can just pick two people to send to SP AGM without needing to rewrite bylaws


●  Any data on the number of orphaned stewards?

●  According to Bylaws, we are in compliance. PIPSC/SP bylaws stipulate ratio of delegates to members. How we organize that is up to us.


●  Need to consider not only orphaned stewards, but also active stewards who are not selected.


●  Rather than just dealing with orphaned stewards,, rewrite delegate policy to encompass everything.


●  Is adding notes in the stewards’ section of the workplan. to ensure the information is carried on in further years.


●  2 things. Can look at what issues are being brought in by members. Can look to see how delegates are chosen to make it more fair and transparent to ensure not only same people come to every AGM.

●  Why do we have orphaned members? Why do all not members belong to a subgroup.


●  Current policy took 4 years to develop. Lots of work to implement. Need to be careful in re-opening it to fix one single problem. In Michael’s report at AGM, bring up orphaned stewards and delegate selection (including challenges and issues) and how it has impacted the group over the previous several years. Always room for questions and challenges. Delegate policy will never be perfect.

●  Good idea to use observer components to allow for more participation.

●  Is the issue that we are not ensuring all of our members are part of subgroups?

●  Some groups have it that any elected position requires you being a steward. Do we want to put that in place in our bylaws?

●  Has brought it to the AC. Asked the AC to look into who is the lead on the stewards. Regions (do training), Groups (elections), or Consultation (use in the development of bargaining direction and in consultation)? Each group thinks they are the lead due to how they interact with the stewards. May be a loss of responsibility after AC look into it.


●  Geography makes it difficult to incorporate orphaned stewards into some subgroups.


●  Subgroup are drivers of mobilization and communication efforts. Do we want to keep that, expand to stewards, etc?? Some groups looking into requiring all group executives and delegates to be stewards.

Action - Michael to analyze and issue a report in January talking about the issues surround delegate selection.


●  Need to make sure we are getting the most active people and people who are the most plugged into the local information.



●  What is the availability of any CBA presentation

●  Is it still the plan to make this (a presentation Dan did)  translated and have it available to all subgroups?


●  Did a presentation based on Neil Burke(???) and had it translated, provided to bargaining team.


●  None of the presentations have been shared with the whole executive


●  Dan's presentation is the best one. Thomas is willing to do translation. Dan’s presentation has a broader, larger scope.

●  Question to Enzo, Suzelle - Do we need to have L&Ls and incorporate upcoming bargaining in current L&Ls.


●  If any subgroup wants material for a L&L, the presentations are good.

●  Need to start concentrating on next round of bargaining.


●  Not pushing it out, but having it available should subgroups want.


●  Get guidance from Enzo and Suzelle to discuss how to encourage these lunch and learns on new collective agreements.

●  Need to coordinate this very well.

●  Not just education on current agreement, but also prep for upcoming collective bargaining.


●  Haven’t seen the presentations. Presentations should have been shared with us so we can discuss.


●  Some members have complained we haven’t gotten enough in recent contracts

●  Should include challenges faced by bargaining team so members are more aware of what bargaining encompasses.


●  Has seen Dan’s presentation. Is same info that was presented in ratification package. No new information.

●  Kinda late in the game to do it now. Should have been done closer to ratification. Is working on a presentation for PCs for their new language. A presentation on what we achieved, as well as to use it is important. People are waiting for employer to do something. Should be encouraging people to be proactive and actually using the new things in the CBA.


●  Want opportunity for SGs to show members exactly what they gained as well as what is available to them.

●  Discussed L&Ls on CBA in May.

●  Zonal meetings had presentations on Collective Agreements and what we gained.


●  Pushed back L&Ls because we were having Zonal meetings.


●  Easy fix to change Dan’s presentation is to add some speakers notes as well as a slight addition on shift work.

●  Can be easily tweaked depending on what audience is.


●  We are in a transitional period between bargaining, ratification and moving forward to new bargaining.

●  Can move forward with presentation showing gains as well as looking forward.

●  In Montreal starting next month with a L&L looking forward.

●  Need the above discussed presentation ASAP.


●  Need a clearer presentation on looking forward, not one that is solely focussed on the past.

Action - Suzelle, Thomas and Enzo to develop a presentation incorporating gains from old CBA as well as what is needed going forward.


●  Send to subgroups? Send to stewards? On the website?


●  Conference call as soon as presentation is ready


●  Actively working on presentation.

●  ACTION - Enzo is going to have CC with subgroups soon. Will bring this up.


●  In future, do a Webex presentation to capture all orphaned subgroups, etc.


●  No need for Webex. Can simply record professionally and put up on Youtube.


●  Will do a CC and send out the presentation and people can simply follow along.


●  Already doing eLearning with various training plans via PIPSC.

ACTION - ALL shall review upcoming presentation, participate in CC to discuss this to get direction for going forward.

ACTION - Donald, Nicole and Judith get a recommendation for how to present this to the members.


●  Objective to ensure that after holiday season we are ready to move forward on L&Ls with a prepared presentation.

●  Prepare a generic presentation for all subgroups to cover highlights of past bargaining round as well as issues/priorities for next bargaining round.

●  Good way to get members excited about survey that is coming up.


●  Would like a copy of presentations ASAP.


●  When we (Exec) want to do something at a workplace or with our members, direction for Exec is to work through subgroups. Focus on communications, mobilization, etc has always been through the subgroups.


●  Policy already exists that communications go through the subgroups.

Selection of bargaining team


●  Some confusion as to how the team will be selected.

●  Will defer to bargaining in the afternoon

Governance of SP Exec


●  Email conducting of business not working

●  Overwhelming to deal with.

●  Made worse by some people responding to nothing, some people responding to everything.

●  Volume of communications is impossible for some people to deal with.


●  Concerned about how this is happening. Also concerned with documentation around decisions and/or discussions.

●  Concerned with people not replying to emails asking for input.

●  Email communication getting difficult.

●  Need a protocol to ensure that when a decision is required, as many people as possible participate, and if you cannot participate, you let everyone know.

●  Not functional to allow decision to be made, then jump in afterwards and question the decision.


●  After each meeting, 3 or 4 requests to continue discussion.

●  Business not done because people not replying.

●  Suggest eliminating discussion of any and all business between meetings. If needed, set up a conference call.


●  Even setting up CC is difficult because people don’t respond or bow out at the last minute.

●  Decisions can be made by email, by CC.

●  Some people do not have the discipline to take part or participate in decision-making activities.


●  Stopping business between meetings not practical. Need to do business between meetings at times to remain agile.


●  Brought up communications plan that was discussed last year

●  PIPSC has come up with a policy on email.

●  What is best vehicle to conduct business off-line?


●  Discipline difficult.

●  Perhaps mandatory telephone CCs between physical meetings.

●  1 hour CC with Agenda.

●  If you cannot attend, send regrets to Exec.

●  If not able to regularly attend meetings, look at reason for being on Exec


●  Many hard timelines/formats in communications plan, e.g., deliverables, which are also linked to the workplan  .


●  CCs during the day difficult to get 100% attendance because of day jobs. If want 100% attendance, during the evening maybe?


●  Other groups have a lot of decisions being delegated from the Exec to the President, etc.

●  For example, does a L&L decision need to be made by exec, or can it be delegated to president, subgroup coordinator, etc…

●  Review decision made at the next Executive meeting

●  Look at possibility of delegating some decision-making to various positions.


●  Along with delegating, need to have some limited budgetary abilities


●  Not in bylaws that single person can make such decisions. Need to stick to bylaws.


●  Delegation of responsibility would be voted upon by Executive.


●  Look at committees for minor decisions. Major decisions to the Exec.


●  Executive has a lot of issues that were brought out at the round table.

●  Part and parcel of the problems that are showing up in group communication.

●  Root problem is there are a lot of problems in the way we communicate with each other.

●  Disgusting to see some of the communications that are coming through the email.

●  Sooner we get the training done the better.

●  Procrastinating the training/retreat not helping things.

●  Has sat on many executives (National and International) and have never seen this type of communication before.

●  Deep-rooted problem that needs to be addressed.


●  Not a secret what is happening on the board of directors. Communications problems are a PIPSC-wide problem.

●  Major issue in culture of PIPSC from the very top down.

●  Most executives are experiencing the very same issues.


●  Due to lack of a way to enforce the resolutions/problems, no way to make sure people are actually fixing their problems. Would be just a waste of money. (as per the consultants)

●  Problems are very serious. No incentive to change behaviours. No way to force behaviours to change.


●  In military, refresher training, team building is regularly done.

●  Went to Learning Tree to look at their curriculum for team building. SImilar to what is done in military.

●  Costly, but might be able to do something to improve the situation.


●  Team building separate from problems currently happening on SP Executive committee.


●  Has seen it done in her workplace.

●  Needs to be done on a regular basis.

●  People don’t know what they do not know.

●  Training can provide people with tools to interact with different personalities in the appropriate way.

●  Can help provide people with the tools in order to properly work together.

●  Can help people figure out the issues they have with other people and provide the tools to resolve the issues.

●  Need to do something.

●  Can be small scale, but needs to be repetitive to ensure what is ingrained.


●  Difference between workplace, where you work with coworkers 37.5 hours a week. More of a challenge when you are only meeting 5 times a year. How can we make sure this approach can be funneled to create a more productive/happy place to interact/work together?


●  Many models out there which meet at our regularity but also offer/take team building plans.

ACTION - Donald, Norma to get together to present a proposal for team building/executive training in January meeting.

ACTION - MARCEL - Put as 45 minute discussion


●  Maybe a hospitality event between the friday and saturday meeting days in January.


●  People need to own and admit their part in the problems that exist. People need to show up with the baggage and be prepared to admit they may be doing something wrong.

(Secretary’s Note - Daniel Ingram left the meeting)

Action items

Orphaned members/stewards


●  Usually subgroups who come to Exec to expand boundaries (See Halifax)

●  Will bring up with subgroup Executive conference call

●  Asking Subgroups to expand may be counter-intuitive to goal to make smaller subgroups.

●  Defer to full topic later in the afternoon

Standing Items


●  Thanks to all who attended stewards councils

BC Stewards council

●  9 attendees

●  Discussion overwhelmingly about Phoenix. Stewards told to grieve Phoenix issues. Message that came across from PIPSC officials was to not submit grievances. Poor communication of message.

●  Question about Scientific Integrity for non-science SPs

●  Excellent meeting


●  Daniel lead as regional rep

●  Went well.

●  New (prospective) steward from Yellowknife able to attend. Convinced him to start a subgroup.

●  Informal meeting worked very well.

●  Not dominated by Phoenix.

●  Most discussion focussed on SP issues


●  All NCR stewards, many PIPSC officials (including Debi, Stephane Aubry, NCR Chief Steward)

●  Meeting had changed start time by Debi’s demand.

●  Good attendance.

Quebec region

●  Only 5 or 6 stewards

●  Low participation

●  Not scheduled as part of regional event. DOne externally

Atlantic region

●  23 attendees

●  Most of discussion about Phoenix

●  Good discussion on PC professional development days.

●  A lot of stewards not aware of PC Professional development clause

●  Still focus on retro-pay and phoenix.

●  Very informal.

●  Several emails from new stewards who really enjoyed it.

●  Look at how to assist Quebec Steward community


●  Focus of meeting should not be about politicians/invited guests, should be about stewards themselves.

●  Who should be conducting meetings?

●  Proposal by Tarek for conducting follow-up meetings after stewards council

●  DFO lost only steward in Whitehorse. Situation of bullying from management. Possibly same issue in Quebec?? Keep an eye as regional representatives. Work with consultation team to see if there are activities the SP Group can support to see what is going on with the stewards.


●  Whitehorse has same issue as regional headquarters in Vancouver. Only 1 steward that teleworks full time.

ACTION - Elizabeth

Get together with stewards in an informal manner (conference calls, exit interviews, stewards councils, etc) to see if there are issues with respect to stewards.


●  Are there any guidelines towards stewards teleworking 100% of the time.

●  No welcome package to new members.


●  Her department has a package for new members


●  Whitehorse - Local SP member from an adjacent department will act as steward for the DFO members in Whitehorse.


●  Most of the work of a steward is to getting members to understand their rights according to the CBA. Explaining to a member why their manager said no is equally as important as fighting with managers. A real need for stewards to be assisting members what their rights are and what they may get in trouble for in pushing a personal agenda.


●  10 page Steward Toolkit and Workers Compensation Board documents were translated and sent out to all SP stewards.


●  Got a panel at science policy conference

●  ATIP to uncover missing reports on muzzling of scientists

●  Provided advice and support to PIPSC parliamentary lobby in fall of 2017

●  Contributed to Scientific knowledge and advice to innovation in Federal Public Service

●  Discussed at last meeting:

●  Science infrastructure

●  Artificial intelligence

●  Discussions with new Science Commissioner from Federal Cabinet

●  See appendix B for SAC report


●  BLPC meeting did not get to our modified bylaws during their meeting

●  A commitment was obtained from BLPC to look at them in the next meeting (in 1.5 weeks)

●  Will look at trying to do most of the translation of the bylaws in-group as opposed to waiting for PIPSC translation. Other option is to get translation done by external companies.


●  Even if translation was done outside, it will still be completely checked by PIPSC

Changes to model bylaws

5.8 Auditing:  As required, auditing and verification procedures shall be carried out by members of the Institute who are not responsible for the administration of Group funds.

Change Institute to Group

6.2 Model composition did not fit the way the SP group functions. Changed executive size to 15 members as opposed to 13. Once explained, Resolutions Sub Committee accepted our changes.

6.7.2 - Discussion held over green text from Resolutions subcommittee vs may/must language (red text) in the proposed bylaws.

Reasons against text from Resolutions subcommittee

Green allows for non-filling of positions.

Don’t want appointments longer than 18 months

Not fair to members to allow for appointed positions longer than 18 months.

Based on discussion, combine the following two statements:

1 -  the remaining members of the exec may select an eligible member of the Group to fulfil that vacancy until the next election.

2 - . A special election must be held to fill vacancies with eighteen (18) months or more remaining in the term of office.

Also remove “a minimum of three-quarters (75%)”

“the remaining members of the exec may select an eligible member of the Group to fulfil that vacancy until the next election OR a special election must be held to fill vacancies with eighteen (18) months or more remaining in the term of office.

6.8.5 - Remove “and shall keep a current list of SP Stewards. “

The Chief Steward shall be responsible for the liaison between Group Executive and Steward

6.9.2 The contract proposals developed by the Collective Bargaining Committee as well as the selection of the dispute resolution method shall be based on the wishes of the Group as expressed in the collective bargaining survey.

8.1.3 8.1.3 Any Annual General Meeting shall consider and vote on resolutions submitted in writing to the Executive at least twelve (12) weeks

ACTION - NORMA/Bylaws committee - Send corrected version to Executive committee

(Secretary’s Note - Robert MacDonald, SP member from Board of Directors joined

Secretary’s Note - Daniel Ingram joined again by Conference Call)



●  Strategic Bargaining committee meeting held

●  President of groups, bargaining coordinator of all groups

●  Overall postmortem of bargaining. Good, bad, what worked, what didn’t.

●  Strategy

○  Entering last year of contract

○  Starting developing strategy

○  Federal Election in October 2019

○  Will have to stop bargaining in middle if not finished before hand

○  Strategize for short bargaining session

○  Strategize for long session

○  Major pro/con is liberals getting re-elected or not.

○  Result of bargaining will depend a great deal on the results of the election.

●  What is gut feeling on quick bargaining session or business as usual and the election will result in a 3 to 3 ½ year bargaining session.

○  Gut feelings from members round table

○  Marcel - Quick and dirty

○  Tarek - Better results from long negotiations

○  Donald - Personally prefer a long bargaining. Members probably long.

○  Norma - Based on membership and comments coming over last round, opt for quick round of bargaining. Perception that we were behind the 8-ball, and should be ahead. Like the idea of focussing on addressing the few things that were not addressed in the last round.

○  Michael - Short

○  Nicole - Quick to get in right timelines in bargaining before the contract ends. Get quick stuff settled, to get some breathing time to start examining other issues.

○  Steven - Members really tired of duration of bargaining. Debi was talking about more elements being decided at central tables. What are these central tables and what will be discussed at these central tables? Happy with a quick decision that would satisfy major issues. Not willing to settle quickly for a poor contract. Complaints about inequality within classifications (for example PC, BI, CH) and between classifications (SG-PATs for example)

○  Elizabeth - Members experiencing fatigue in the last round. Some classifications did very well, others stayed status quo. Money is a big issue. Whatever route is most satisfactory monetarily would be the best.

○  Robert - Short vs long is the central question as to where you get the best deal. Bird in the hand better than 2 in the bush. Overall the long term bargaining session got us a lot of stuff. Members want results. They will be happy with long term bargaining if they get the results they want.

○  Enzo - People want results, be it a  long or short bargaining round. Very rare to see a federal party win 3 in a row. If liberals win, what is incentive to be generous? If they are looking to get re-elected, may be willing to give a little more in the short term If they are already elected, what is motivation to give us stuff in elections.

○  Suzelle - Definite link between election and bargaining results.

○  Thomas - Results of december blitz needs to be examined. Was it fully effective? Some people that didn’t sign in december got a little bit more. Have a currently good relationship between PIPSC and Treasury Board. If Liberals lose, that relationship may no longer exist. Also, members suffer not only from bargaining fatigue, but also from bargaining alzheimer's, in that they forget what they asked for 3 years ago. The people that did gain in this round were people who hadn’t gained in previous bargaining rounds. Need to bring people as close as possible to internal relativity. Need to be careful to not bring into pay scales the inequality that has been a goal of being eliminated for the last 4 or 5 bargaining rounds.

○  Enzo - Short is simply an extension of the current contract. 1 or 2 year extension to allow us to regroup, to allow the subgroups to properly survey their members with what they want.

○  Michael - Short term reasons:Economy may go down;Different government. Not much incentive to settle if liberals win.

○  Daniel - Quicker is better. Not sure that delaying would give any big result

○  Norma - Agrees with Daniel. What would be period of time for extension?

○  Enzo - Until told differently, the law forcing us to go on strike is still on the books, and PIPSC needs to be ready to negotiate in 1 month. PIPSC getting ready to negotiate as per normal, or a month before the current contract ends.

○  Elizabeth - How long the extension for? How would economic increases work?

○  Thomas - Majority seems to be indicating quick negotiation round would be favourable for members. Extension seems to be less favourable because even with short negotiation still potential to get more than just cost of living.

○  Suzelle - Between 6-9 months (june 18 to Feb 19) to negotiate a short term deal.

○  Daniel - Doesn’t see any advantages to a short term deal. Allows the govt to get away with a lot of stuff.

○  Norma - Didn’t even get a cost of living allowance, short term might be a good way to do that.

○  Tarek - Still many problems with pay problems.

○  Suzelle - Can’t worry about Phoenix. Will always be a problem.

○  Thomas - Deficit (as raised by Daniel) may be a big problem in the future. Deficit formula working right now for the liberals. Majority of SP Exec comfortable with quick bargaining session. Majority of SP Exec not comfortable with an extension of the current contract.

(Secretary’s note - Robert MacDonald left the meeting)

●  Thomas - Will be a PIPSC-wide approach to bargaining (quick vs extended) that will be discussed at next Strategic bargaining Committee.

Bargaining Team election


●  Need to get team selected ASAP


●  Executive made the decision to wait until after election of new execs to choose the new BT.


●  Currently plan for Bargaining Team Training to take place in february.


●  Bargaining Team is a priority


●  Reason for not putting out a call is the requirement for a minimum of ½ of the members to be from the executive committee. Currently, 3 people not on the exec are currently interested in staying on the team. Need 4 people from the exec. Not necessarily going to do a call as it would indicate a lack of confidence in the people who are currently interested in staying on the bargaining team. As a result, can’t really do a call right now as the additional people on the BT need to come from the Exec.


●  If anyone is interested in putting forward a motion at the upcoming SP AGM to change the way the SP Bargaining Team is selected, they should do so, but at the risk of no longer having Suzelle as a negotiator.

●  We could be bargaining as soon as in January.


●  How is starting from scratch, with a brand new BT, with no experience at all, good for the members.


●  Indicated through subgroup presidents meetings. If someone is interested, they should contact the SP Exec.


●  Instead of doing a call, send a message to the presidents of the subgroup, including all of the criteria that will be considered for selecting candidates


●  Flipside of doing the call is how to determine who you keep. Can result in increased frustration from the people who are not selected.


●  Treat the selection of the people as a competition. Need to do lots of research to determine how to change the process for the next round of bargaining.


●  Understands what Suzelle is saying, and it makes sense.

●  Want a more fair and equitable way to determine. Want a process that is defensible to our members. Send out a call and let people apply. If the people currently on the SP BT who are still interested apply great, if not, have a bunch of new people who will apply.

●  Bylaws say the Exec is supposed to pick the BT. Why not allow the people to actually apply.


●  Who is on the selection committee?

●  Is entire SP Exec supposed to pick, or is it just between Suzelle and Bargaining Chair.


●  Allow the Executive to vote on the suggested team members as proposed by the Bargaining Team Chair and the negotiator.


●  Train a large group, then swap people in as needed.


●  PIPSC will not allow training for a large group to allow for backups. Previously, PIPSC didn’t even want to train people who had already been on the bargaining team.


●  Would like to see a call out for members for the Bargaining team so that any member can apply. Provide criteria so that members can decide whether to apply or not.


●  Exec needs to decide whether to do it for this round of bargaining, or at the next round of bargaining.


●  Idea of call for bargaining team a real good idea. However, it is too close to the bargaining session that is upcoming to change it now.


●  Agree with Marcel. To close to the start of bargaining to improve the process now. Not necessarily to change the process, but to look at it.


●  Only change between what is done now and what is suggested is to put out a call to members.


●  3 members currently interested in staying on Bargaining Team. If want to put out a call, need to also include in call for elections for Bargaining Team that people need to be members of the executive. As such, need to also adjust the timing of the elections for Executive members to move it up so that people can run for the executive so they can then apply for the Bargaining Team.


●  If want to make it transparent force people who are currently interested in remaining on the BT to apply.


●  We are talking in circles. BT should come to Exec


●  If we decide to radically change the way the bargaining team is selected, we may have to deal with a change in negotiator from PIPSC.


●  If we go for a quick negotiation, the bargaining negotiator and their knowledge of the different classifications will have a large impact.

●  MOTION: (Elizabeth, seconded by Tarek)

●  Do a call letter to refill the external members of the bargaining team with the selection of the external bargaining team members to be determined by the executive.

●  Amendment (From Enzo, seconded by Michael)

○  Send the letter after the election

●  Donald

○  Against the Amendment as it would be too late

●  Tarek

○  Against - better to have list now can do it sooner as soon as the election is done.

●  Amendment defeated


●  Against the motion due to a lack of clarity on how the selection is being made.


●  Against due to the second clause on the selection by the executive


●  Speaking for as it is following the bylaws. Premature to worry about process until after the people have submitted their names.


●  Against as it is too close to the next round of bargaining

For the motion 4

Against the motion - 3

Abstentions - 3


ACTION - Elizabeth. Develop process to select from the people who are putting their name forward.

Bargaining survey


●  Bargaining survey draft presented to EXec.

●  Not complete. Still working with research (at PIPSC)


●  AC still working on professional qualification and recognition

Comments on Bargaining Survey


●  Need to ask how many people who have stopped applying for bargaining conferences.

(Secretary’s note - Daniel left conference call)



●  Give examples of additional administrative burdens


●  Is teleworking something that can be considered.


●  Consult subgroup presidents, stewards, etc.


●  Put limitations on bargaining at the end just prior to the comments section.

Action - ALL

Provide feedback on bargaining survey to Suzelle by December 8th



●  Has presentation on PIPSC Document Storage

●  Will table to January meeting due to lack of time

Workplan/documentation review


●  3 main sections

●  1 - Deals with committees and projects

 Includes standing committees such as finance, bylaws, science committee

●  2 - Maintenance

●  3 - Mapping of processes

●  Not finished, main headers are there.

●  Trying to capture what is done before, what is done, what is done after

●  Not meant to bind, but rather as guidance

Mobilization efforts


●  Tabling decision on mobilization committee to January meeting.

●  See Appendix C for Mobilization Committee terms of reference

ACTION - ALL examine and review Mobilization Committee terms of reference as provided by Tarek via Email

Interpretation of Bylaw 6.1.1

●  Tabled until January



●  Application to create new subgroup in Yellowknife

Executive Travel

ACTION - MARCEL Put as standing item on Agenda


●  Only local executives were invited to observe at subgroup presidents meetings.

●  Michael was invited as Exec of Burlington subgroup exec


●  Group president has right to attend ⅓ of all subgroup AGMs every year.

●  Was able to participate in Quebec East, Winnipeg, Whitehorse

●  Need to better coordinate executive travel.

●  Not in SP Budget, it is covered by PIPSC

●  President or Regional Rep is allowed to attend subgroup AGMs.

ACTION - Nicole - Who is covered by PIPSC to attend subgroup AGMs?



●  Inventory reduced quite well.

●  See appendix D for listing of swag

●  For next AGM, need to diversify what we have to change up our swag


●  Spend an extra 5k this year on swag/promotional items that are useful.


●  Go to AGM to ask what they would like us to spend on swag

ACTION - Nicole/Donald: Look for new promotional items. Go as high as $10k in promotional items


●  All will look over resolutions for tomorrow


●  ACTION - Marcel will clean up 2017 SP AGM documents

●  AGM Date - April 7th

●  Guest Speaker - Any suggestions send to Judith ASAP


●  Tabled until January Exec meeting


●  Touched earlier

●  Questionnaire as discussed in bargaining

Next Meetiing

●  Need 2 days

●  19th and 20th of January

Meeting adjourned at 7pm


Time / Heure  Topic / Item  Lead /

9:00-9:15  Ouverture de la réunion - Opening of the meeting

●  Règles d'engagement - Rules of Engagement

●  Approbation de l'ordre du jour - Approval of Agenda

○  New Business

●  Approbation du procès-verbal - Approval of Minutes

○  Rencontre du 22 sept - Sept 22nd Executive Meeting  Thomas, Marcel

9:15-9:30  2018 SP Election

●  Election Chair

●  Election Committee  Dan

9:30-10:00  Orphaned Stewards

●  Inviting orphaned Stewards to SP group events  Elizabeth, Dan

10:00-10:20  Bargaining

●  Sub-Group L&Ls

○  availability of collective agreement presentation

●  Selection of Bargaining Team  Dan

10:20-10:45  Gouvernance de l’executif du Groupe SP - Governance of SP Group Executive

●  Email communication

○  How to conduct business via email  Dan

10:45-11:00  Pause - Break  

11:00-11:15  Mesures de suivi - Action Items Review  Marcel

11:15-12:30  Articles permanents - Standing Items

●  CCS Comité stratégique - SAC Strategic Committee

●  Bylaws

○  SP Bylaw Modifications

i.  6.2 (composition)

○  Interpretation of Bylaw 6.1.1 of SP bylaws

●  Délégués syndicaux - Stewards (EP)

○  Inviting orphaned stewards to SP group meetings

○  Regional Stewards Councils

i.  What was the activity?

ii.  How many Stewards attended?

iii.  What was successful about the event?

iv.  What could be improved for next time?

●  Communications(JL)

●  TI - IT (DI)

○  PIPSC Document Storage Solutions

●  Membership (SD)


●  Plan de travail - Workplan (DI)

○  Efforts de mobilisation - Mobilization efforts (TS)

●  Sous-groupes - Subgroups (EB)

○  Redraw boundaries to get orphaned members

●  Executive Travel

○  Coordinating efforts, planning/tracking/etc

○  Subgroup President Meeting participation

○  Group President

●  Examen de documents - Documentation Reviews

○  Plan de travail - Workplan

○  Plan de communication - Communications plan

○  Paquet d'orientation - Orientation Package

●  Swag  

12:30-1:30  Lunch  

1:30-2:00  Bargaining

●  Bargaining conference 2018

○  Planning, attendees, location, etc

●  Bargaining Survey

●  Follow up from SBC meeting of October 2

●  Terms of Reference of Bargaining Team

●  “Non- Science” SPs and how the Scientific Integrity MOU applies to them

●  Including Judith in email chains  

2:00-2:45  AGA IPFPC - PIPSC AGM

●  Résolutions - Resolutions

●  Attendees at future PIPSC AGMs  Norma

2:45-3:00  SP AGM

●  Extraneous document inserted into 2017 SP AGM documents

●  Date (2018)

●  Guest speaker (2018)  

3:00-3:15  Pause - Break  

3:15-4:00  Mobilization

●  Coordinator vs Committee

●  Activities/planning

●  Terms of Reference  Tarek

4:00-4:15  Conseil consultatif - Advisory Council

●  Steward support and appreciation

●  Professional Qualification and Recognition  Thomas

4:15-4:30  Dates de la réunion exécutive - Executive Meeting Dates

●  January meeting

○  1.5 vs 2 days  

4:30-4:45  Affaires nouvelles - New Business  

4:45-5:00  Tour de Table - Round Table  

5:00  Fin de la réunion - Closing of the meeting  



PIPSC’s Science Advisory Committee (SAC) has met three times thus far in 2017. During this time, the committee has been involved in the following:

•  As per the Board approved Strategic plan on Science, SAC continued to align its contributions, recommendations and discussions on the following key activities:

 Science Membership Survey

 Departmental Science Integrity Teams Working on SI Policies with Departments and TBS

 Women in Science:

 Conference Attendance Initiative

 State of Government Science Monitoring

•  Members of the committee also got involved in the nationwide for March for Science event;

•  Members provided feedback on our submission which helped  us in reaching a PIPSC panel at this year’s Canadian Science Policy Conference (CSPC);

•  SAC sent an ATIP to uncover the missing report on the muzzling of scientists from Information Commissioner;

•  SAC provided advice and support to the PIPSC Parliamentary Lobby in fall 2017;

•  SAC members contributed  their scientific knowledge and advice to the PCO-OECD consultations on Innovation in the Canadian Federal Public Service’

A lot of work still lays ahead for the committee, especially on Scientific Integrity and how its inception will affect PIPSC scientists, as well as for the following upcoming subject matters:

•  Science Infrastructure

•  Artificial Intelligence in Science Based Departments

•  Building bridges with the newly appointed Chief Science Advisor


APPENDIX C - Mobilization Committee


Draft Submitted by Tarek Salem for approval by the Executive, November 16,, 2017

Purpose of the Mobilization Committee

To promote active engagement with the Local members and educate members on collective bargaining related issues.

To develop and carry out campaigns related to membership engagement in all components. These campaigns may include but are not limited to collective bargaining and political action (MPs lobbying)

Reporting Structure of the Mobilization Committee

The Mobilization Committee is a sub-committee of the Executive. The Committee is required to report to the Executive on the work of the committee.

Composition of the Mobilization Committee

The Mobilization Committee is open to all SP member.

The committee will have at least one executive member to act as a liaison between the Committee and the Executive.

A member of the executive shall call and chair the first meeting. A chairperson shall be elected at the first meeting of the committee.

A member shall be chosen at the start of the each meeting to record action items and then pass them on to the executive and all committee members.

Responsibilities and Duties of the Mobilization Committee

Decisions are to be made by consensus, with the exception of decisions on spending for campaigns, which shall be voted on by the Executive committee. Votes will be decided by a simple majority. Quorum for such votes shall be 3 votes.

The budget of the mobilization committee shall be proposed by the executives, and submitted for approval by the membership at the AGM on a yearly basis.

Expenditures of more than $1000 must be approved by the executive committee.

APPENDIX D - Inventory of Swag

White mugs  272 out of 750

T-Shirts (Science)  6 (mainly small, with 10 additional stained t-shirts)

T-Shirts (Canada 150) 7 (5 Men, 2 Ladies – various sizes)

Shirt and logo  4 (2 Men, 2 Ladies – various sizes)

Lunch Bags  12 (12 Eng, 0 Fre)

Shoulder Bags 14 (12 Eng, 2 Fre)

Water Bottles 60 out of 200

Medals  30

Computer  1

Varia Flags (“What more can we afford to lose”): 1500 (~1100 sticks)

  Pens (Science works): 400 – all dried-up, to be disposed

  Window stickers: small: 650; medium: 1370; large: 60

  Save science buttons: 800 (50% - English and French)