News - June 2005                    Previous Month         Following Month

The headlines for current month's news items are listed immediately below. Click on the headline of your choice to see the entire text of the article.

A delegate's guide to making the most

of the Agriculture Union Convention -

TOPIC #3: Convention Rules or Order

A delegate's guide to making the most

of the Agriculture Union Convention -

TOPIC #2: Convention Resolutions

Update on EG and GL classification reviews

at Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada

Nova Scotia farmers, public join our members in rally

to save Nappan Experimental Farm

A delegate's guide to making the most of the Agriculture Union Convention - TOPIC #3: Convention Rules or Order

(Posted June 28, 2005)

Convention delegates assume an important responsibility. In the three short days of our National Convention, they must debate and vote on resolutions, establish a three-year union budget and elect national and regional leadership and delegates to the PSAC Convention.

The Rules of Order are the 'roadmap' that guides delegates through their participation in Convention proceedings. Based on long-established parliamentary tradition, the Rules of Order ensure that debate and discussion are conducted in an orderly and respectful fashion.

While the Rules of Order at first blush appear quite daunting, most delegates quickly get the hang of them. And, in situations where delegates run into difficulties, the Convention Chairperson can usually be relied upon to help them out.

There is no need to outline all the Rules of Order. However, it is useful for all Agriculture Union activists to know at least the basics.

First, some simple definitions. The subject matter or proposal for debate is put forward as a 'motion'. Not surprisingly, the person who proposes the motion is the 'mover'. Before it ca be debated, a motion must have the immediate support of an additional delegate - a 'seconder'. Once a motion is duly 'moved' and 'seconded', it is open for debate and resolution.

The Rules of Order are adopted at the start of Convention, immediately after the National President's opening address. Traditionally, two members of the National Executive will 'move' and 'second' a motion to adopt the Rules of Order. Delegate debate on a motion is presided over by the Convention Chairperson, who uses the Rules of Order to ensures it is conducted in a the proper fashion.

Every delegate has the right to propose and discuss any motion, provided it is 'in order' (accords with the Rules of Order).

Generally speaking, any motion placed before the Convention is debatable. The exceptions are the following non-debatable motions:

• to adjourn;
• to appeal the ruling of the chair (except that the chair may explain his/her ruling);
• a point of order (where a delegate believes the Rules have not been correctly observed);
• a question of privilege (where a delegate feels his or her personal interests have been attacked);
• to suspend the Rules of Order themselves;
• to table a motion;
• to postpone, refer or reconsider a motion (except that the propriety or advisability of these three may be debated);
• the previous question (to end debate on a given motion); and
• to move into a Committee of the Whole.

A Convention delegate desiring to speak will rise, proceed to a microphone and wait to be 'recognized' by the Convention Chairperson. The delegate first states his/her name, the Local he/she represents and the reason for rising to speak.

A delegate may not move a motion immediately after he/she has spoken to the question. There must be an interval between the speech and the motion. A delegate may choose to forego the opportunity to speak and straightaway present a motion.

No delegate may speak more than once to a motion until all who wish to speak have done so. Should either the mover or the seconder speak for a second time, further debate on the motion cannot take place.

As long as the Rules of Order are followed, all delegates are entitled to express their opinions on any debatable motion before the Convention without interruption or disruption. While acceptable to attack the motion or the intent of the motion, it is never permitted to attack the mover, seconder or any delegate who speaks to the motion.

It is common practice for delegates to use the 'third person' and to avoid referring to other delegates by name. This custom avoids a degeneration of the debate into personal exchanges or violent disagreements. Delegates can be referred to by use of such terms as 'the committee chairperson', 'the mover of the motion', 'the previous speaker', the 'Brother/Sister', et cetera.

A delegate's guide to making the most of the Agriculture Union Convention - TOPIC #2: Convention Resolutions

(Posted June 8, 2005)

Each Agriculture Union Local has the opportunity to submit resolutions on issues and concerns to its membership for consideration by delegates to our Triennial National Convention. Our union's National Council may also submit resolutions.

Four separate Committees are selected to oversee the entire resolutions process. They deal with the following areas: By-laws; Finance; Collective Bargaining; and General Resolutions. Each Committee must follow strict terms of reference set down in our by-laws. As their work occurs both before and during Convention, all Committee members are themselves delegates.

After the deadline is passed for the submission of resolutions, the Committees formally convene at our National Office in Ottawa to examine all submitted resolutions, ensure they are in order and classify them into the four subject areas. While they may not introduce their own resolutions, they are allowed to combine two or more submitted resolutions into a 'composite resolution'.

The times during Convention when each of the four Committees presents its report - or, in other words, introduces its resolutions - is set out in advance in the agenda. The Committee Chairperson introduces resolutions one by one. In order for each resolution to be officially placed before the Convention, the Chairperson will note who on the Committee has 'moved' and 'seconded' it.

For each resolution, the Committee will have made its recommendation to delegates: either 'concurrence' (or, agreement) or non-concurrence. Delegates who wish to participate in discussion or debate on a specific resolution will line up at one of the microphones on the Convention floor.

The Convention Chairperson presided over the debate, ensuring it is conducted in accordance with the Convention rules of order and that every delegate who wishes to speak to the motion has an opportunity to do so.

Delegates who wish to speak are recognized in turn by the Convention Chairperson and 'given the floor'. It is customary, either through the rules of order or at the instruction of Convention delegates themselves, to limit the time for each speaker to put forward his or her views.

After all those who wish to speak have done so, or the Convention has supported a delegate motion to end debate, a vote is called. Normally, a show of hands is sufficient to determine the outcome. Where a vote is close, the Convention Chair will entertain a motion from the floor to hold a standing or recorded vote.

Once adopted, a resolution becomes the policy of our Union .

Regardless of topic, Convention resolutions may be broken down into two broad categories: those that affect only the Agriculture Union and its members, and those that impact the entire membership of our bargaining agent, the Public Service Alliance of Canada. The latter, after being passed by our own Convention, are submitted for consideration the following year by delegates - including Agriculture Union members - to the PSAC's own triennial Convention.

AN IMPORTANT NOTE.

When Convention delegates vote on a resolution, they vote on the Committee's recommendation, not on the resolution itself. This sometimes leads to confusion. The following table simplifies the problem by showing how a delegate will vote in each of the four possible situations:

Update on EG and GL classification reviews at Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada

(Posted June 2, 2005)

While often painfully slow, progress is being made on the classification review of the EG and GL groups for our members at Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada .

GL GROUP:

With respect to the GL group, the working committee will meet in early June to review the revised generic work descriptions drafted at the committee's first meeting.

Our union's representative, Gerald Dwyer, will be involved in this process and will be providing us with his feedback for ongoing reports.

At the June GL meeting, the committee is to work with representatives of the Learning Division to establish a competency profile for the group. This is part of the department's initiative to develop competency profiles for all classifications.

An employer survey has just been sent to all GL employees, asking them to complete and return it to the department. The review of the work descriptions, the surveys and ongoing discussions with managers and employees will all be used to develop the competency profile.

EG GROUP:

The previously-developed work description writing tool for the EG group was used in the Prairie Provinces early in the New Year. The department decided to conduct on-site reviews to ensure that the tool was being used appropriately and met the needs of the organization.

As a result, a number of classification officers visited numerous Prairie work sites and met almost 200 EG's at the end of March and the beginning of April to review the new work descriptions, discuss recent work and have incumbents complete a further questionnaire on their work.

The data gathered from these on-site visits was to have been reviewed later in May, with a report provided to senior management by the end of June. We are hopeful that the results of this review will be issued and implemented very soon thereafter.

It is also hoped to have a substantial amount of the work for all other provinces completed by the end of next October, with implementation before the end of the year. It is not expected that much work can be completed over the summer, due to availability issues for both management-side staff and our members.

We will continue to discuss EG and GL classification reviews at our meetings with senior management. Further membership updates will be provided as they become available.

Nova Scotia farmers, public join our members in rally to save Nappan Experimental Farm

(Posted June 1, 2005)

Our members fight to keep Nova Scotia 's Nappan Experimental Farm from closing received a big boost on May 29 from Amherst-area farmers and citizens.

Over 300 participants from Halifax to Moncton , and points in between, attended a 'Save the Farm' protest rally. The crowd was drawn from the farming community, labour and general public.

The event was co-sponsored by the Agriculture Union, the Cumberland County Federation of Agriculture, the Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture and the Public Service Alliance of Canada.

The federal government has said it will close Nappan, a 140-year-old research facility located near Amherst , as a cost-savings measure.

Agriculture Union National President Yves Ducharme sent the rally a strong message of support on behalf of all our members.

"We as a union and a society cannot stand by while the government cuts research dollars. This is a small facility with a great history of research and support to the beef industry and the people at this rally are proof of the support Nappan has earned.

"Balancing the budget on the backs of these workers is not something we will stand for. These employees have given years of service to the beef industry in Atlantic Canada and they have the full support of the Agriculture Union in attempting to keep their jobs at Nappan."

Jeannie Baldwin, PSAC Regional Executive Vice President for Atlantic Canada, also spoke to the need to keep Nappan open.

"Whose interests does this closure ultimately serve? Certainly not the farming community. Nor the Canadian public, who rely on the farming community to put food on their tables. And not small communities, such as the Amherst area, that have come to rely on the income these public service jobs provide".

The rally received wide media coverage throughout the province. Thousands have already signed a Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture petition calling on the Liberal government to stop the Nappan closure.

Bill Casey, local Conservative Member of Parliament, said the Farm should not close until the Minister of Agriculture comes to Nappan to see for himself the impact of the potential closure.

Put on the spot, the Liberal hopeful nominated to run against Casey in the next federal election said the decision by his own Party was wrong.