Integrated strategy for human resources and pay
Progress update session, January 2025

Alex Benay: Okay. Francis just told me my question would be the first. So, here it goes. You are right. Sometimes I think we get carried away with our wording. I think our teams are so wrapped up in it and want to see the project succeed. I want to say ultimately. That said, the decision has not yet been made. Until the end of the current fiscal year, we intend to make a recommendation to the Deputy Minister’s Sponsorship Group, Chris and Bill Matthews chairing. Then, at that point, we will have more, we will make a decision. I just want to point out that making a decision in March does not mean the system comes online at that time. There will be a further 18 to 24 months of configuration and testing to be done before we start rolling it out, I would say, more globally, throughout the federal department. I don’t know, Chris, if you had any comments about the role of the DMSG?

Christiane Fox: Yes, perfect! I was just about to say that in fact, even if the final decision has not yet been made, decisions did need to be made to do the necessary testing, to see whether a platform would be ready and for the decision. So, a decision was made about Dayforce in terms of a platform that we would continue testing, that we would definitely demonstrate and take back to the Deputy Ministers’ Group and say, okay, here it is. We had all these criteria that went into making that choice. And now, with the information we’ve been able to collect and the subsequent testing, we are making this recommendation. Then the group will make the ultimate decision, but I think what we can tell you is that we are very encouraged by the performance to date. I think we really received some excellent input from people working on the matter that will inform that ultimate decision. I think the platform and testing are essential to allow us to make the final decision.

Francis Trudel: Maybe I can start. I have a lot of empathy for this question, because it is in fact a complex process—more than complex—it’s the human resources process that is the culmination of a series of transactions that lead to the success or failure of a pay file. It’s called an end-to-end process. It’s hard to identify where, in each of the files—each file has its own merits. Each file is specific. The need for accountability? I would say that I’ve been in this business a long time, in human resources and pay, and I would say that if I see anything that is changing, it’s certainly that no one is playing the ostrich and sticking their head in the sand about whose fault it is. I see—and I say this sincerely—I see deputy ministers who at this moment are taking responsibility, accountability for rationalizing their investments and the decisions they make about their systems. It would create problems if those decisions were not made. I see a community of human resources professionals who understand that they have an advisory role that must be appropriate and timely in terms of the transactions that need to be made. Here again, there has to also be accountability taken. I see communities of managers who increasingly—and thanks to you, the employees, for bringing your pay issues to the attention of your managers, because they too need to, need to identify transactions and, as they say, move the file to the top of the pile and say: this has to be done right away, these actions, because this is affecting my employees’ pay. So accountability is being taken. Each file is particular. What I would say is that we are often wrong—and here, Alex, I don’t want to speak for your team—but we are often wrong to get to the end of the process and point our finger as though the error was made by the person doing the pay transaction.

Alex Benay: You can certainly say that. That’s right.

Francis Trudel: I have a lot of empathy for the people working to resolve these cases, particularly cases they have inherited. These are not cases they have created. So, in looking for accountability, we have to be careful not to jump to the sometimes too-simple conclusions, but I have seen some improvement in this area.

Christiane Fox: Yes, I just wanted to add—I think Francis’s answer was excellent—that despite the fact that it has been frustrating, and despite the fact that the system did not perform well, public servants, one thing I find comfort in, is that we are looking at these cases, these experiences. And when we develop the new platform with necessary transformation, we try to look at those challenges and see how they could be avoided. It may not be comforting in terms of the experiences you have had, but know that those challenges are on the table. We check, and we test the system with these in mind, to avoid a repeat of past scenarios. Thank you.

Alex Benay: It’s more fun answering questions when you have time to think. So, going third is great! Perhaps an observation, and plans for next year. Next fiscal year, to try to give you some reassurance. One, the reason why we are where we are is that we made a choice; we made the wrong decisions in 2016-2017. Poor business decisions. We have departments that control their decentralized human resources systems. That is essentially okay, but we have a centralized pay system. So throughout a transaction, to Francis’s point, there are lots of things that can go wrong. And it’s not always obvious what those things are. It’s almost a whole investigation every time a case is created at the Pay Centre. Did the department fail to transfer the file during the file transfer? Was there a delay at the Pay Centre? Did the employee fail to fill something out? We have to simplify this. That’s for sure. That’s the problem in a nutshell. We have a business model that isn’t working. On a new platform, if we move ahead with Dayforce, there will be transparency with every transaction. Does the problem lie with your manager? With you? If the transaction was not done, your manager will receive an email. The manager’s manager will receive an email. And we will continue on up the food chain to the deputy minister, until the transaction gets done! There will be a level of transparency integrated into the new platform that we don’t have at the moment. Okay! You’re going to say: That will take years! So, what are we doing soon? Next year, in April, we will be putting in place a pilot project with a new human resources and pay concierge. That will be a start—I want to stress the word start—on incorporating transparency into our operations. So, what I mean to say is that you will be able to ask the officer, where is my ticket, or is my ticket with the Pay Centre, has it been assigned? Where are we at in the process? The goal will be to use this platform with monthly updates. So there will be new features that will be added every month to enhance the level of transparency within the process, to at least see where the problem lies in the current process and help you see where you stand with the steps taken.

Alex Benay: Francis indicated it was my turn to go first. So, here goes. I would say, immediately, no. Potentially, in some cases, yes. Let me explain a bit more. The reason why we want to focus on Shared Services to reduce the backlog to zero is that one, they will be one of the first departments to implement Dayforce, if we proceed with that decision in March. That’s one. But two, we also want to do testing to see whether the department can contact compensation officers directly, like in the pre-Phoenix era. So that would mean that we would have John or Jean, the compensation officer who could be in contact with a branch, like back in the day, and have more direct service. We will start our testing. The intention is to do it next year. Then we will share the results with everyone. That may help. There is a chance that it won’t help either. So we really want to see the results with data. And then, like with everything we are doing in the program, we will base these results on the Internet and share them with you as we begin our testing of changes to the service model.

Francis Trudel: I don’t have much to add on this issue. What I would say is, there are decisions to be made, and the sequence in which they are made is important. All decisions are important, but the order is important too. I have managed human resources in a context where I had pay services that reported to my team directly. I know what that looks like. I was also part of the transition, when we moved to the Miramichi operational model, and I understand the reasoning behind it. The reason why both work, at least intellectually, is that there was a well defined business model. So we adjusted our service model based on the business model. I think there are decisions to be made now, such as, which system are we going with? How will it work? Once that thinking has been done, we can decide which service model will be the most appropriate to support the departments. Not really much to add, except to say that the questions are valid, but the sequence is important. We need to define the trajectory of the next step, the next system, in order to provide a full answer.

Christiane Fox: I can start. Maybe you can jump in afterwards, Alex. I think it’s still a bit—it’s a question that is a bit premature in the current context. We introduced artificial intelligence to see how we could maximize technology, to manage. At this time, we are doing testing on the simplest cases. Obviously, we will take, we will see how it unfolds, but today, we can’t define the future employees that will be needed to manage the pay system. Yes, we can use technology to improve our service, to improve the system, to maximize the tools we have. There will always be a need for public servants, human resources experts and payroll experts going forward, with the Dayforce platform or some other. So, we can’t give a definitive number as an answer today. I think we also have to be careful not to adopt AI too quickly, before we truly understand it and understand the required security, limitations and human input to address areas where AI can’t do the job. So I would say we’re studying this closely. I think it’s important for the public service. We’re looking at artificial intelligence and responsible adoption, but we can’t give you numbers today, at this point.

Alex Benay: Yes, I’m 100% in agreement with Chris. I can tell you we don’t know the cost; none of the data at the moment. That’s why we’ve taken an approach—yes, we’re planning currently, but we also have our hands in the tool, to be able to start deciphering it. Beyond a PowerPoint presentation, in the real world, how will it operate? I can tell you that the only thing we know right now is the cost of not doing things that way. That’s what we did in 2017. We had a business case that said that 500 employees were needed. We hadn’t tested anything. So we pulled a number out of thin air, I’d say. And the cost to PSPC, at this point, we know what it was. Everyone paid the price in a very personal way. So we definitely want to avoid making the same mistake this time around. Pulling numbers out of thin air, from basically anywhere, without testing everything, I would say, when we go, for example, into a department and will be implementing the solution, if that’s the direction we’re going with Dayforce, that will be six months of testing. So I want to say that we will be taking the time needed to make the decision.

Christiane Fox: Thank you for the question. So, in fact, questions about transition, public service councils, are something that my attention and my work have been focused on recently, with all the scenarios we are dealing with. I think I would like to say something to answer the question. First, I think it is very important that we put in place all the authorities needed two advance both elements of our system. To ensure that we can manage the current pay system and improve on the current system, at the same time that we have the investments and the authorities required to move forward with the new system, the new platform and the transformation needed to arrive at a new pay system. So we have the funding authorities needed for both. I think it will be really important, as a public service, to present to a new government, sooner or later, around October 2025, the work we have done, the transparency we demonstrated as a public service. Being humble about the challenges we experienced and honest about what we learned from them to put in place these new systems. So what gives me confidence is that we did the work needed to build a business case that is truly based on work, on facts, on lessons learned, on a system that will allow us, as public servants, to provide our best advice. So that is what we must do in the end. That’s our job. It comes from the ethical value of public servants and the public service. So what gives me confidence is that we’ve done the work. And we can present a solid business case. So, will we have questions? Absolutely! Will we have to make adjustments? Maybe, but I think that what is important is the work we are doing right now to put ourselves in the best possible position, to give our best advice. Thank you.

Francis Trudel: I’m not sure I have much to add to what you said, Chris, but I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to say that regardless of the incoming government, we will have the same objective, which is to pay our people correctly. I think we absolutely all have that same goal, regardless of the colour of government that will be in place. We will have questions that will be asked, such as how to get to that stage, how fast and with what type of tool. We are doing our homework. We are studying. We have lessons learned since 2016 up the yin yang. I think we can share. And we will play our role of direct advisors. However, there are also things, in my opinion, that are inevitable, that will be decisions to be made, again, regardless of the government in place. That’s that there is a platform that is not sustainable. So we have a platform that needs, that we will need to make changes to. So there are decisions that will have to be made at that time—that aspect is inevitable. So I don’t see—I see a lot of questions, but I don’t have a lot of concerns about what comes after.

Alex Benay: I think Francis will be taking . . . No, it’s mine. Listen, that is an excellent suggestion, and I would tell you we are in the process of giving the Call Centre more authority to resolve cases. For the moment, that does not mean all cases. You heard me say earlier that we will be looking into whether Shared Services, for example, once their backlog is cleared, that there will be direct talks between Pay Centre employees and the Department. That would be one example. We are looking at, I would say, six to 12 different types of cases that the Pay Centre could also resolve directly. So we’re in the thick of it. Your suggestion, I would say we’re right on target. Thank you very much. And I would also say, feel free to contact me if you would like to help out, because we are 100% in agreement with your recommendation.

Christiane Fox: I could start, Alex. I think that when we draw up the budget, obviously, the last budget included representations regarding cuts. I think it was indicated in the budget: 5,000 employees. The majority of the departments are managing the situation, but others will be making different decisions. I think that collectively, across the public service, we will absolutely have to prioritize existing priorities. The human resources pay system is one of them. I think we need to have a good system in place for our employees. I think we will have to dedicate the necessary resources to do it. So I think each department will look at its specific context, programs, etc. I would say that within the public service, with the committee I chair and in conversation with the clerk, it is essential that we dedicate the necessary resources to the pay system and ensure that it runs smoothly so our employees get paid. As Francis said, that’s our objective. It’s an objective we will be keeping. So I think that what I can say in terms of priorities is that emphasis will be placed on the pay system.

Alex Benay: Absolutely nothing to add. I just want to say, perhaps briefly, that our teams and Francis’s teams are working very closely with our central agencies, the departments. I want to say there is positive momentum. That’s basically what I am trying to communicate. And we fully intend to make it to the end of the fiscal year with clarity that we will be able to communicate more readily. Soon, we hope.