Workplace-focused mandate
3,783 votes
For: 3,783 · Against: 738 · Abstentions: 682Back to the voting guide
Our editorial position
The case for a different direction.
Our position is straightforward: CAPE’s national resources should focus on workplace issues. Below are the documents behind our argument, alongside the context needed to read them fairly.
Large majorities. A clear difference in priorities.
Members voted in favour
Advance disclosure of resolution costs
3,542 votes
For: 3,542 · Against: 837 · Abstentions: 824Members voted against
Inquiry into treatment of pro-Palestine workplace activism
3,805 votes
For: 869 · Against: 3,805 · Abstentions: 529Percentage-based dues proposal
3,889 votes
For: 1,208 · Against: 3,889 · Abstentions: 106Public-service pension divestment campaign
3,394 votes
For: 1,178 · Against: 3,394 · Abstentions: 631Campaign for federal recognition of genocide in Gaza
2,891 votes
For: 1,363 · Against: 2,891 · Abstentions: 949Percentages use votes for and against and exclude abstentions. These are results among participating voters, not percentages of all CAPE members.
2025 membership vote results (Source in English)01
Spending on foreign-policy campaigns
The record
In 2025, the NEC recommended a campaign concerning Israel-related public-service pension investments, estimated at $250,000. It also backed lobbying the federal government to recognize Israel’s actions in Gaza as genocide.
Our position
That is the allocation of time, money and energy we oppose. Our union should concentrate on bargaining, job security, grievances and working conditions.
Important context
The $250,000 was an implementation estimate, not proof of money spent. Proponents linked divestment to pension ethics and solidarity. The separate dues proposal sought a percentage-based model; we do not claim that proposal funded only external campaigns.
2025 AGM documents and voting package (Source in English)02
Members chose the workplace over the NEC recommendation
The record
The NEC advised members to reject the workplace-focused mandate. It passed with 3,783 votes in favour and 738 against: 83.7% support, excluding 682 abstentions.
Our position
That is a clear instruction to put members’ working lives first. CAPE’s time, money and energy should serve bargaining, job security and representation. Members United promises continuity with M4C. We want leadership that follows the workplace-focused mandate.
Important context
The NEC defended a broader mandate as helpful to equity, coalitions and bargaining. Our criticism concerns the allocation of union resources. Protection against workplace discrimination remains an essential union responsibility.
03
Members deserve the price tag before the vote
The record
The NEC recommended against stronger advance cost disclosure for resolutions costing at least $500 or likely to raise dues. It argued that existing financial review was sufficient and the proposed threshold too low.
Our position
We disagree. A proposal should clearly show what it will cost, what members may have to pay and how it advances their interests at work. Members are entitled to that level of financial accountability.
Important context
This criticism concerns that specific recommendation. In 2024, members approved fuller NEC minutes and meeting recordings: 1,499 in favour, 116 opposed and 290 abstentions. We do not claim members rejected every reform.
2024 membership vote results (Source in English)04
Nathan Prier: a president’s accountability
“My comments on Reddit were posted to a personal account and reflect my personal beliefs. I was not speaking as the President of the Canadian Association of Professional Employees.”
The record
A June 2, 2025 National Post report covered a complaint about Nathan Prier’s social-media conduct. Excerpts reproduced on Reddit describe allegations that he used a “sockpuppet” account to rally support for his own posts while appearing to be another user. The complaint also alleged harassment and defamation of Jewish CAPE members. These are reported allegations, not established findings.
Our position
Members can hold different views on Palestine and still expect transparency from their president. In our view, speaking anonymously about union matters falls short of the openness that this office demands. A personal account does not remove a president’s responsibility to maintain members’ trust. The separate allegation of posing as an independent supporter, if substantiated, would raise a further concern about honesty. Members deserve leadership that takes those responsibilities seriously.
Important context
The quotation above was supplied by the site editor. The report summary relies on third-party excerpts that we have not authenticated against the full article or original complaint. An anonymous account alone does not establish deceptive impersonation or a breach of union rules. We have not verified a published disciplinary finding.