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

Christiane Fox: I’d be happy to start. Thank you very much for the question. I think that when we really talked about culture and a different approach in recent years, it was really to try to address employee anxiety in a more transparent way in the context of the work we do. So, yes. I can understand that employees may have concerns about a new pay system, but I think what I would say to try to alleviate some of those concerns is that we are definitely going to take a different approach when it comes to integrating a new system. The approach to date has been very different in the context of visibility studies. We really spent time as a group of deputy ministers, Alex’s group, looking at the state of our—whether we were really ready to undertake the work and migration necessary in the new system. So there was a lot of work to be done to really audit the system’s readiness. Second, I think we’re going to learn from all the reports that came out during Phoenix, including the Auditor General’s report, to see how we can ensure that this transition will be different. Perhaps we could take a slightly slower approach from the outset, integrating only a few departments at a time, to learn and then manage our future decisions in light of the lessons we learn. So, in context, these are lessons we will learn. I’m confident that some people still have a lot of anxiety and I think that sessions like today’s are really about showing a different approach and an understanding of our employees’ experiences in the lessons we’re going to put into practice when it comes to this new transition. I don’t want to minimize the anxiety that people are going to feel, but at the same time, I’m going to try to ease it by talking about taking a different approach.

Francis Trudel: Yes, I think the anxiety component is normal and natural. It’s entirely justified. I would even say that the last time we did this, there were mistakes made for which we are still paying the price individually. So people—I can’t just say individual, but institutional as well. The concrete measures are drastically different, be it, for example, a gradual implementation of the system to ensure small successes before moving on to bigger steps. That’s probably the aspect that reassures me the most as an employee. I think Alex, you can also speak more intelligently about the implementation of parallel systems, which will also help reassure people if certain steps were taken a little too quickly. Then we should make a few minor adjustments to the implementation. We still have these measures in place. So there is real, justified anxiety. We’re responding to the lessons learned from last time so that we don’t repeat them.

Alex Benay: I don’t want to repeat what my colleagues have said. I would be surprised if there wasn’t some anxiety underlying it. I mean, it’s perfectly normal in our current context. A few items to add, for example. I would say that our transformation efforts—if we put an hour into transformation, we also put an hour into all of our current operational systems. So, it’s important to know that there is no intention to do what is known as a Big Bang or a rollout when we cut off the old system and launch the new one. We did that last time and we know it didn’t work. That’s why we’re putting as much effort into all our current operations with Phoenix and others as we are into our transformation. The reality is that we don’t know how long the transition will take. We’ll know that later in the year. We’ll have a better idea when we start testing, but we’re definitely not going to embark on a transformation where we cut off one system. Then we’ll jump 100% into the other one. That’s the first step. The second thing I would say is that how we work within the team is just as important, if not more important, than what we do. What do I mean by that? I mean that all the transparency measures we are currently implementing are new. I can’t think of a project off the top of my head, but I’ll check with my colleagues, who will probably have tried to be as transparent as possible as what we’re doing with our HR and payroll system. Then there’s the reason—we all know that Phoenix has been around for nine years now. So how do we work? We try to implement transparency measures that will give you all the data you need, all the information you can absorb. You’re welcome to take a look, because we already have a lot of documentation on our portal. I encourage you to read it. If you have any questions, please contact us. At the end of the session, Mitos will provide you with a list of different ways you can contact us and the project team. We want to hear from you. I often receive individual questions, which I try to answer as best I can. So, I mean, the spirit of transparency that we're putting in place isn't just for show, to say that we’re doing it and that we’re different. It’s really to try to engage all employees across the public service who have been affected by Phoenix.

Alex Benay: Listen, I’ve been to Miramichi, Moncton and other places to visit our pay centres a dozen times. I can tell you that as much as I want to see the problem resolved for our public service employees, I also want to see our problems resolved for the people who provide services to you, because it’s not easy for them, including those working in payroll. I’ve heard many horror stories. Frankly, people who slept under their desks for weeks. They had no documentation available with the new system. We had to do all the documentation and training when the system was implemented. We’re definitely not going to repeat those mistakes. So, the simple answer is yes. It will be ready to go live. I can’t commit 100%, but it will be at least 95%—I can tell you that, because we definitely need to have—there will certainly be things that come up that we weren’t prepared for, because there are always surprises, but our goal is to have as close to 100% of the documentation ready as possible.

Francis Trudel: I would just like to add to Alex’s answer or the question that specifically refers to procedures for compensation staff. I would just like to expand on that a little bit to say that it is probably just as important to extend this same concern to all stakeholders involved in payroll. We often tend to forget that payroll is the end of a process that begins much earlier, initiated either by an employee or a manager. So, there are three communities for which the same procedures need to be clarified before we go live, as the question says. I’m talking about managers, who have responsibilities and who sometimes even initiate requests or at least respond to requests from their employees. I’m talking about employees, but also Human Resources practitioners. So, if we want to achieve the same impact and have the same expectations about the clarity of procedures in the new environment for all of these people, then you understand that when I refer to these three communities, I am talking about everyone in the federal public service. I think the concern raised here is also relevant, well beyond just the compensation community.

Christiane Fox: Thank you for the question. We’ve had several discussions, in fact, in the pay system sponsoring group, about the use of artificial intelligence. I think it’s essential, in our consideration of the federal government’s responsibilities, to view artificial intelligence as an important asset to the system. I think there is a real need to look at how we can adopt this technology in a responsible but significant way. I think we could see real benefits from using artificial intelligence. Alex will probably talk about this, but we’ve deployed artificial intelligence to manage some of the simpler, less complex files, to get results for our employees. I think we can really look at how we can maximize this technology. At the same time, we must also consider the importance of our employees in managing this transition and truly implementing the pay system. So, I think that the work and expertise of our employees will be extremely important to our success. So, I think so. It’s true that in some cases, someone could do something manually, but time—and we’ve seen this with the efforts we’ve made in recent years—can also be maximized with technology to improve our performance, to be more, to meet the needs of our employees. So, all that to say that I understand that there may be some questions about usage. Again, it has to be used responsibly, but at the same time, if we continue to do all our work manually, we’re going to end up with a backlog. I think the system and our employees expect the government to use technology to improve our service to our employees.

Alex Benay: Thank you. I would add, just to give some figures as an example, to highlight what Chris said. On average, the pay centre receives approximately 1.6 million transactions per year that require manual intervention. Over the years, we’ve been able to automate—I won’t use the term artificial intelligence. It’s a different technique, a different technology, including artificial intelligence, but there’s more to it than that. So, out of 1.6 million, we’ve been able to automate 500,000 entries. I mean, we still have manual intervention for around 1 million or 1.1 million transactions. The goal here, as Chris mentioned, is to increase the use of artificial intelligence within these 1.1 million transactions. The more the machine is able to answer a simple question, the more humans are able to introduce themselves and then focus on more complex cases, I would say. So, those that deal with several years or greater complexity. The goal is to never take humans out of the decision-making process. In human terms, we’re always going to be at the ready, as they say! So, it’s not about eliminating humans. This is to ensure that the complex work that needs to be done, until we replace the systems and then our processes, is managed by humans. That way, machines can do simpler things. To answer the question, as Chris also mentioned, I think we’ve shown that we’ve had trouble dealing with our backlog with humans for nine years. We have a business, I would say, of advisors that keeps growing. This isn’t something that’s going to be sustainable forever. We need to find better ways of working. The last thing I’ll say is about why this is important: we don’t want to see an organization transfer to Dayforce and continue to have backup problems. We want employees transferring to Dayforce to have near-perfect records. So, to get to that point, we need to make sure we’re deploying all the tools at our disposal. People. Machines. Changing processes. Changing the service model to ensure that all organizations transferring to Dayforce are as ready as possible.

Alex Benay: Alright. I think I’ll take this one. Then Francis, feel free to chime in if you want. Basically, at this point, I would say that we look at everything that is overpaid. The longer it stays in the system, the more complex the code becomes. So—no, I won’t make any analogies. I promised I wouldn’t! But the goal is to make sure that people who have cases—and we don’t have any cases from 2017, by the way. If there are, please contact me. My understanding is that we don’t have any more. The idea is to try to eliminate the oldest ones as soon as possible to ensure that complexity disappears. I just finished saying in the previous question that we want to focus on all new cases as much as possible with the support of machines, whether it’s automation or artificial intelligence, because in theory, these cases are easier to resolve than a case that dates back several years where an individual has changed collective agreements, changed departments, left the government or returned. Then the case becomes increasingly complex. We really want our staff to focus on older backlog cases. At the same time, the machines will ensure that we have as few new cases as possible that fall into the overpayment category. So, all of this comes into play to ensure that the complexity we’re dealing with does not continue to increase. Francis, beyond 2017, go ahead.

Francis Trudel: Listen, you didn’t want to make analogies. I’m not going to try to improvise as a Comptroller General, but we’re talking about managing public funds here. We have public funds for which individuals have been overpaid, which is a mistake, which is problematic and which causes problems for employees. We agree with that, but we are still talking about public accounts, and we have to account for the debts we owe to the Crown. These overpayments are debts to the Crown. So, we have to do our part to ensure that we collect these debts owed to the Crown and we have to do so in the most respectful way possible to employees through the pay centre, using the Comptroller General’s guidelines, which tell us to give you flexibility for repayment. After that, once we’re talking about this principle, there is money that has been overpaid to employees, which is owed to the Crown. From that point on, I think what Alex just mentioned is completely complementary, meaning the longer we wait, the more complex the issue becomes. The more we complicate the issue, the more problematic it becomes for the future. That’s beyond the “trash hole,” beyond the six-year mark. We have collective responsibilities. Then, I would say that as an employee who has received surplus funds, there is also a responsibility to repay the Crown for funds that are not owed to the people who received them.

Christiane Fox: I can start. With the new government and everything going on around the world, there is a lot of pressure and many priorities across government departments and agencies in Canada. We have a new government with a lofty ambition to carry out the government’s seven missions. That being said, we must ensure that our pay system remains a priority for our employees, because that is our service to them. It’s our reputation. It is truly a priority for us to ensure that the pay system and the eventual transition to Dayforce is a success for all of us. So how are we going to make sure that this remains a priority in everything that happens within the government? I would say that PSPC, Treasury Board, and the Privy Council Office meet weekly to discuss the pay file and prepare for a session with the deputy ministers who are members of the sponsoring group every other Thursday. This means that we have an opportunity every week to take stock of the situation between central agencies, to ensure that there is continuity, that progress is being made and that we are discussing issues that are occasionally on our radar. So this work, along with the day-to-day work done with the pay team at PSPC and Treasury Board, ensures that this will remain a priority. We also have a weekly meeting at the Treasury Board office with deputy ministers from all departments and agencies. Also, I should mention that we use this forum to talk a bit about the changes that are needed in the system. We discussed—there was reference to the fact that it is indeed an IT system, but also a cultural change. But when it comes to cultural issues, things we need to do to adapt our practices to ensure success, there are things that we require from our departments and deputy ministers to ensure that we achieve success more quickly. So things like harmonizing basic employee information in human resources systems, hiring new employees for a fixed period of seven months, making sure that people who join the federal government start on the day after pay day.

It’s the little things that make a difference. For example, when we can standardize aspects that are within our control, we are more successful. I’m using this example because it means that when we talk about it with the sponsoring group, there’s a system in place between the central agencies where we can discuss it with all the deputy ministers. We can discuss it with human resources leaders. This ensures that all these methods of communication remain among the government’s priorities. It’s up to us to do it. I’m telling you that we’re going to keep doing it, because I can understand the issue, that it can be easy for things to slip a little if the systems aren’t in place to keep them in place. Then, given the transparency of the approach we have taken, if all our decisions are public, we have to ensure that the decisions we make are appropriate to ensure progress on the Phoenix and Dayforce files. So, I’ll stop there, but it’s a very good question, because without the system in place, things could fall through, but we want to ensure continuity through the system.

Francis Trudel: That’s an excellent question. I am very reassured to hear Christiane tell us how much we are going to focus on the importance of the agenda, but joking aside, I would say that, obviously, as employers, we are biased when we look at the importance of this project in relation to all the other projects. Obviously, it would be too easy to say: but don’t worry, nothing will get in the way of that priority. From the perspective of the Treasury Board Secretariat, I would say that we are responsible for the internal management of the federal public service. There is absolutely nothing in the federal public service that is more important than this issue, which affects 100% of the people who work for us. One could argue that this contradicts major initiatives to improve services to Canadians. My response would be that there is no contradiction. If we are unable to provide a service internally for our own employees, for whom we should have the same quality standards that we expect for the Canadians we serve, then we are not in a position to serve ourselves well and ultimately serve all the other projects that will come along. No, I don’t see a contradiction, but I certainly see—I understand the concern.

Alex Benay: Just add to that the fact that, as the project manager, I can tell you that in 2019, when we launched the NextGen tender to replace the HR and payroll system, people had a lot of questions. Why the current system, etc.? Well, quite frankly, I don’t think there was a ton of support necessarily. People weren’t even afraid of the project in general. The difference this time is what Chris mentioned. There isn’t a Deputy Minister, I don’t think, whom I haven’t spoken to in town in the last two years. Then there are about 15 who meet every two weeks. In any case, the support is incredible. Last time, we didn’t have the Deputy Clerk, who is scheduled every two weeks. We didn’t have the Secretary of the Treasury Board. I mean, it’s a senior-level powerhouse that’s completely different from what I saw in 2019. So for me, selfishly, for the project team, the support we’ve received is completely different from what we had in the past. That’s the first thing. The second thing is that you’ve already seen that the Minister of PSPC, Mr. Lightbound, has already made an announcement about the future of Dayforce. So, this shows you that even through a government transition, it continues to be an issue that needs to be addressed. I can tell you that on a personal level, during my four- to five-year transition out of government, I had many, many questions from governments around the world asking me what was going on with our HR and payroll system.

We need to fix this problem because, as Francis mentioned, if we can’t provide internal services, we won’t be able to have an honest conversation with Canadians about the services we’re going to offer them in the future. So, all of that together makes me think that we have incredible momentum. I think we have an incredible opportunity to solve the problem once and for all. Then it’ll just be a matter of taking one step at a time and continuing to be transparent.

Christiane Fox: Thank you for the question. And, of course, it comes up in conversations I have with employees across departments and agencies. It’s something people talk about. The government has made it clear that one of its priorities will be a reduction exercise. It’s part of the new government’s mandate. Each department will have to look at its functions, programs, policies and services to contribute to the reductions that the Government of Canada has identified as a priority. There will be some difficult choices to make in terms of programs, services and policies, but I think that as managers, we want to take a practical approach toward our employees. The decisions won’t always be easy in terms of what they mean for people within the departments, but I would say that the priority of the human resources and pay system and the success of achieving the objectives of the new pay system is a priority for us. So, yes, difficult decisions will have to be made within departments. The exercise is just beginning. So we can’t talk about specifics today. However, I would say that the pay system is a priority for us and will continue to be. So it will be part of each department’s thinking.

Francis Trudel: Perhaps just a quick addition. I think Chris gave us a reasonable answer. There is a platform. There is a goal. We have to be honest about what that means. Then, I would say that even when there are no cuts, the impacts are significant, because there will also be changes. So changes that are going to happen, either machinery changes or departmental changes, which even if there are no staff cuts, have significant impacts. I’m not sure whether the human resources impact component refers to the impact on employees as such or the role of human resources. If I take it from the perspective of the role of human resources, then, as with any period of major change such as this, we are given the destination or the direction. That is a political decision. We receive it as public servants. It’s up to us to absorb it. The role of human resources in this is not to set that destination. It has been given to us, but we need to focus on how to get there, understand the impacts, and recommend different approaches to reach this proposed destination. I would say that this will be the specific impact on the human resources community.

Francis Trudel: There are obviously several roles to play in this transition. I touched on this briefly in my opening remarks. I think we have—I’m trying to get back to the two pillars I introduced earlier in my remarks. I’d say that we have work to do on simplifying the system. We have job competitions that are significantly important and complex, but we also have a way of implementing solutions to these employment conditions that are not standardized across the system. So, the first role to play in this transition is to ensure that we have procedures in place in each department to implement each transaction between departments, whether it be pragmatic things such as managing term employees, managing term time or managing acting employees; we have to ensure that they are done systematically and in line with the best practices of the next system. We need to set up training programs. It will also be—I mentioned earlier about training for employees, for management employees. I would say that we also have work to do in collaboration with Alex’s team, which will be done even before we embark on these new initiatives, on these gradual transitions, as mentioned earlier. We need to conduct an organizational assessment in each of the institutions that will be undergoing this transition. Are the organizations ready in terms of their resources? Is change management in place? Is the training in place? Have the classification and data cleaning exercises been done? Almost like a diagnosis. It will be part of the Treasury Board’s role, along with Alex’s team, to make that assessment and then certify that the organizations are ready for the next wave, to move on to the next system. After that, and I might end on this, there will be an evaluation stage for each wave to ensure that the waves were done correctly and that we learned from each wave before moving on to the next one. We’ll also have a role to play with the Treasury Board for that exercise.

Alex Benay: The simple answer is yes. People call—sometimes they say that a replacement project is one technology replacing another. That’s really not what it is. We want to revamp our service model. We’re literally doing that this summer with the Pay Centre. So how do we deliver the service? Can we just respond to one case at a time, or do we look at one file per individual? So, one individual with all the cases surrounding that individual. So, those are the things we look at. So yes, it’s going to be a complete review of the processes. We have another example.

We have 66 different types of letters of offer. We’ll have just one when we have a new solution. So, I’d say that everything is on the table in terms of reviewing our business processes. And some of the technologies we want to implement should help address the issue you raised in your question. So, with a centralized data management model, perhaps people could change their own mailing address, for example. Often, in cases where funds could be repatriated due to overpayment or other reasons, letters are sent. The address is incorrect. We send emails and the address is wrong. That’s no excuse. What you’re describing must be a really frustrating situation, but the purpose of some of these technologies is precisely to start limiting the kind of negative experiences people have with their pay in the public service.

Francis Trudel: We often have debates within the project about whether this is an IT project or an HR culture change project. I’m one of those who think that it’s actually much more of a cultural change than an IT project, even though there’s a big IT component to it. Earlier in the session, I think in the English session, we had a question along the lines of, “Now that we’ve stabilized the system, why bother switching to a new system if the current one works well?” My answer to the question of whether this is an IT project or a cultural project is that people will make a bad system work, as we are doing now, but that also means that people can make a good system fail in the future if we don’t follow best practices. So, with that in mind, I’ve come to the conclusion that procedures and cultural changes are crucial and take precedence over IT issues.

Christiane Fox: The bottom line is that there’s no chance of success without changes to culture and processes!