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

Since the launch of the Phoenix Pay System in 2016, work to stabilize Pay Operations has been ongoing. Despite significant efforts by the Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer (OCHRO) at the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS) and Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC), public servants continue to feel the impacts of its roll out eight years later.

The session informed public servants of the continued work being done to stabilize operations and the current status of the transformation project to integrate pay and human resources into a central system.

A commitment has been made to move forward transparently on this file through regular updates, a revitalized webpage and user engagement. This was the fourth of a series of quarterly updates that will be organized in the coming year.

This video is the recording of the event which held on June 23, 2025. Both an English and a French session took place separately. Most topics were covered equally during both sessions, except for the question-and-answer period at the end, which took questions from the different audience members. Below the video, you will find the list of all questions and answers addressed during the French session.

Transcript of the video: Progress update session, June 2025

Start of video

(Text on screen: Public Services and Procurement Canada)

(Title text on graphic: The Government of Canada's Quarterly Update on HR and Pay)

(Text on screen: Join the conversation on Slido! Code #GCHRpay4

  • Answer polls
  • Up vote questions from your colleagues
  • Government of Canada)

[Graphic changes to Mitos San Diego on a stage and talking from podium, with Alex Benay, Francis Trudel and Christiane Fox sitting at the table to her right.]

Welcome to the fourth quarterly update for HR and Pay for the Government of Canada. This is the English event for all public servants.

(Text on screen: Mitos San Diego, Senior Director in the Strategy and Integration Branch, Human Capital Management portfolio, Public Services and Procurement Canada)

For those of you tuning in for the first time, I am Mitos San Diego, Senior Director in the Strategy and Integration Branch within the Human Capital Management portfolio at PSPC, and I will be moderating today’s session.

Before we begin, I would like to acknowledge that since I’m in Ottawa, I’m on the traditional unceded territory of the Anishinaabe and Algonquin Nations. We are grateful to meet on this land and acknowledge the ongoing contributions of Indigenous communities across Canada.

As we all work in different places, I invite you to reflect on the Indigenous territory where you are joining us today.

[Moment of silence]

I know the timing today might not be ideal for everyone, but it’s been a little while since our check-in back in January. We’ve got a lot to share. And with summer just around the corner, we didn’t want to miss the opportunity to reconnect and keep you in the loop before everyone heads off on well-deserved vacation. Part of what makes this event so important is the direct engagement with have with you, so let’s dive in.

[A graphic takes up 60% of the screen and a small square still reminds of Mitos San Diego on video in the top right corner.]

(Title text on graphic: Recap: What We Said Last Time)

(Text on graphic;

On January 22, 2025, we updated employees, unions, and the media on the HR and Pay.

  • Continued publications of monthly commitment trackers to show progress for FY 2024-25
  • As of January 22, we had released 150+ documents and datasets about HR and Pay on the Open Government Portal

Transparency by Design engagements:

  • Updated website
  • Facebook page
  • HR and Pay email
  • User Awareness Sessions
  • Employee Consultation Pool
  • Public Opinion Research (POR)

Work to simplify rules and standardize systems and processes:

  • The Employer and several bargaining agents signed memorandums of Understand to collaboratively pursue simplification.
  • Engagement with bargaining agents has advanced on liquidation of leave and the rules for some allowances.
  • TBS has decided to review the Program and Administrative Services (PA) Job Evaluation Standard, which will reduce the number of subgroups for the PA group from 10 to 5 (or less).

Since January feels pretty far away, on screen you’ll see a brief recap of what was said at our last event. You can watch the full recording on our website and find event materials on the Open Government Portal.

[Video returns to full screen with Mitos San Diego talking from podium.]

So without further ado, let me introduce our panel:

[Video changes so you can see Mitos at the podium and Christine, Francis and Alex sitting at a table next to her.]

(Text on screen: Christiane Fox, Deputy Clerk of the Privy Council and Associate Secretary to the Cabinet)

(Text on screen: Francis Trudel, Associate Chief Human Resources Officer at the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat)

(Text on screen: Alex Benay, Associate Deputy Minister of Public Service and Procurement Canada for Human Capital Management)

Christiane Fox, Deputy Clerk of the Privy Council and Associate Secretary to the Cabinet; Francis Trudel, Associate Chief Human Resources Officer at the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat; and Alex Benay, Associate Deputy Minister of Public Service and Procurement Canada, Human Capital Management.

I will now turn it over to the Deputy Clerk to begin.

[Video changes to Christiane Fox talking at the table.]

Thank you, Mitos, and thank you all for being here and for tuning in from across the country.

As was mentioned, a lot has happened since our last session and the public service has certainly been at the centre of things. We supported fair and free elections, and transitions between prime ministers, and to a new government mandate. We also coordinated a historic visit from His Majesty the King, who delivered the Speech from the Throne, something not seen in Canada since 1977.

Speaking of transition, as you may have heard, we are also welcoming a new clerk on July 7th. Michael Sabia will bring a wealth of public service experience as we advance nation building projects, drive growth, and deliver change. And I also want to thank our current clerk for his exceptional service over many years.

The Speech from the Throne, along with the single mandate letter released in May, outlines seven priorities for the cabinet, and by extension, the entire public service. Essentially, the priorities are a call to action to breakdown silos, to remove barriers to collaboration, and to deliver results that matter to Canadians, faster and with greater agility. That’s not just policy, it’s a shift in mindset, and HR and Pay modernization has a vital role to play in bringing this vision to life. It’s how we build a more connected, responsive, and inclusive public service, one that is future ready, resilient, and designed around people.

Over the past fiscal year, we’ve made important strides on both pay stabilization and HR and Pay modernization. Public servants are working hard to address the backlog of pay cases and to lay a solid foundation for HR and Pay modernization.

On June 11th, Minister Joël Lightbound, announced that we are officially moving forward with Dayforce as the future system and the future solution for the Government of Canada. This decision wasn’t made lightly. It’s based on the results of the feasibility study conducted over the last fiscal year, which it was approved by the deputy minister sponsoring group last month.

The goal of the feasibility study was clear: Determine if the Dayforce HR and Pay solution can meet the complex needs of the Government of Canada and confirm whether we, as an organization, are ready to adopt it. It also answered the tough but essential questions. Is the system ready for use? Are we ready for it? Can departments implement it at scale? And of course, can we finally fix the foundational data issues we’ve been dealing with for far too long?

The bottom line is that while some gaps were identified, we confirmed that moving forward with Dayforce is feasible. This is a major step forward. It’s also a signal of momentum, of moving from assessment to action.

I want to take a moment to thank you. The modernization of HR and Pay is complex, and your involvement is what makes it better, more grounded, more informed, and ultimately more successful.

Since we adopted this approach one year ago, we have hosted six Transparency by Design workshops, with 48 employees from 10 departments. We’ve held three quarterly events like this one with you, with unions, and with the media. We’ve introduced live Slido Q&A’s through which we’ve received over 1,200 questions from employees, and ran an employee pulse check survey earlier this year, with over 1,100 of you participating between January and March.

Here’s what we heard. Nearly 60% of you said these events help you better understand ongoing HR and Pay transformation efforts. A strong majority are interested in receiving updates more frequently with events and newsletters being the preferred format. While there is optimism, we also saw that only about half of you feel confident that current efforts would lead to meaningful improvement in areas like getting paid correctly or accessing expert support. All this tells us that we’re on the right track, but we still have a lot of work to do.

I’m also happy to announce the launch of our new employee newsletter, ‘À livre ouvert’.’In the Open.’ It is designed to keep you informed of key progress, results, and next steps. The answers to Slido questions will also be published here. If you haven’t signed up for it yet, please visit the PSPC website or use the QR code on the screen to sign up to get the latest news and content. Because transparency isn’t just an event, it’s a habit. It’s one we’re committed to.

Last fiscal year, we released 279 documents on the Open Government Portal, to provide you with a glimpse of our progress and strengthen accountability. This year, we’ve already released 55 documents and plan to exceed last year’s number. This year is about building momentum, strengthening employee involvement, integrating your feedback into future events and products, publishing clearer more regular updates, and most of all, moving forward on the transformation we’ve been talking about for years.

The deputy minister sponsoring group will remain closely involved in shaping the focus of HR and Pay. Over the next 15 months, this DM sponsoring group will make key decisions on change management, system rollout, and the eventual transition away from Phoenix.

I want to thank the Treasury Board and PSPC for their leadership on this file, and all of you, for being part of this journey. Modernizing HR and Pay isn’t just a technical change, it’s cultural. It’s about putting people and service at the centre of how we work.

Now, I’ll hand it over to Francis to discuss progress on standardizing and simplifying the HR and Pay landscape. Over to you, Francis.

[Video changes to Francis Trudel talking at the table.]

Thank you, Chris. A pleasure to be here with you again, and with Alex, to give everyone a little bit of an update of what we’ve accomplished so far and maybe what’s left or what’s in front of us.

Last time I was here, I spoke about two kind of pillars the Treasury Board was focused on in our work on HR and Pay, one being simplification, the other one being the standardization. These two pillars remain a very good framework both to progress on the current environment, but also to pre-position ourselves for a successful transition to the new system. This will have to be done and supported with the help of PSPC, our colleagues, stakeholders, and also our bargaining agent partners, consolidating the HR systems, onboarding department to MyGCHR, and providing the right support to employees and managers to proper training.

So a couple of works on simplification. Since last time we spoke, you’ll remember that the inherent requirements for simplification comes from the complexity of the environment we’re working in, the pure size of the public service, 400,000 strong, the regional diversity that we have, the number of classification systems, the 72 classification regime that we have or standards, the number of collective bargainings, the number of unions, all of these are part of our complexity that requires some simplification where we can. For that reason, you won’t be surprised that part of our biggest stakeholders in this is to work with the bargaining agents, our colleagues, to do some work that has a direct impact downstream to people who are operationalizing pay. So we’ve tried to operationalize the Memorandum of Understanding that I spoke to you about last time, which was part in parcel of or attached to collective agreements with almost all the unions last time we signed our new collective agreements. There has been 10 different sessions discussing opportunities with unions since October last, where the employer has presented some proposals, including how we administer benefits, how we deal with liquidation of leaves, and some transactions.

We have also looked at our processes. Happy to report that we’re in an agreement in principle on a new directive on collecting union dues, for example, you can imagine how many transactions that generates. So standardizing and simplifying a process like this is impactful downstream to our folks administrating pay.

We do niche initiatives, things like working on the EX policies. You’d maybe think that there’s not much there. There’s not a lot of executive in our system, but when you look at how we administer pay for executive, it is a high level of manual intervention. So we have some work there, and we’re also doing a lot of work on things that has much more impactful in size wise, for example, happy to report that we’ve now reengaged on the classification initiative of the PA conversion. PA conversion touches more than 70 departments, more than 50% of the public servants that are occupying positions within the PA group, so progress there would be significant. So consultations have started, procurement process is underway so we’re advancing.

Maybe a couple of words, quickly, on standardization. Not too exciting to talk about governance, but it was very important to put in place the governance to ensure that CIOs, CFOs, heads of HR would come to a central place of interaction with OCHRO and PSPC for any investment, any change to the system, so we can control the environment. So that’s been put in place.

Onboarding to MyGCHR, I believe, Alex, you’ll speak to that in a few minutes, but also last time I spoke, I spoke about starting from 70 systems, now down to 30. It’s a great progress, but that’s way, way too many still.

We’ve put things, pragmatic initiatives, Unified Action Plan. You’ve heard the terminology UAP. We started from a system where everybody had their own system, their own practice, their own processes, to a place where we’re going, where there’s going to be one system and one way of doing things So these UAP measures are about exercising this muscle, where we kind of start to standardize things like self-service maximization, term administration, actings.

And maybe the last thing I’ll say is training. In February, last February, we launched the training now for managers on Phoenix. This complements a training package that we had put in place last year for managers. Please, I encourage you if you haven’t seen this, please go and see the site of the Canadian School of Public Service. The training is nothing like what was existing before. It’s pragmatic. It’s got scenarios. It’s got links. About 50,000 people have now gone onto those two trainings, so I encourage you to go there. It’s very useful tools now in place.

So I’ll stop here and I’ll pass it to Alex.

[Video changes to Alex Benay talking at the table.]

Thank you, Francis. So as Chris mentioned, we have an opportunity to think differently and to stay focused on outcomes that matter to Canadians, including our employees. And that’s certainly the approach we’re taking for HR and Pay.

Since we couldn’t hold an April session due to caretaker convention, I want to start by taking a look at the results from last fiscal year.

[Video changes to a graphic that takes up 60% of the screen and a small square with Alex Benay still talking in the top right corner.]

[Graphic on screen.]

(Title text on graphic: Commitments: Tracking our progress. Progress against 2024-25 commitments*)

(Text on graphic;

Current operations (2024-25)

  • Reduce Net Backlog – 49,000 Cases, at 63% and up 20%
  • Process Backlog Cases with Financial Impact – 19,000 Cases, at 88% and up 6%
  • Eliminate SSC Priority and Backlog cases – 12,000 Cases, at 88% and up 3%
  • Process Backlog Cases During Routine Processing – 81,000 Cases, at 95% and up 15%
  • Introduce New Pay Measures (Unified Actions for Pay)- 7 Measures in Effect, at 57%
  • Onboard 9 New Depts. To MyGCHR as Interim GC HR System – Completed – 100%

Transformation (2024-25)

  • Data Hub Procurement – Vendor recommended, at 60%
  • Data Hub Pilot – Pilot Environment Ready – 100%
  • AI Virtual Assistant – 3 Case Types Tested and Implemented, at 72%
  • Build and Validate Dayforce System (Year 1) – Feasibility Report Completed, at 100%, and up 10%
  • PSPC and SSC Data Migration Pilot to Dayforce – Pilot Completed, at 100%, and up 5%

*Data as of March 26, 2025

**Data compared to previous month)

So this is the 2024-2025 tracker that you should be seeing on screen now. So we made some commitments last year, and as you can see on the tracker, we made some strong headway in some areas, where we made some real progress and others we had to adjust. So we hit 100% of our commitments in areas that include onboarding new departments into MyGCHR. So we were able to onboard nine departments, and we were able to complete the data migration pilot for PSPC and SSC, which will serve as our Vanguard department, so the first departments to onboard to Dayforce.

And as Chris mentioned, one of the big achievements last fiscal year was completing the feasibility study to see whether Dayforce was a real option as our next HR and Pay systems, and as you know, on the June 11th announcement, we made the decision to proceed. So this wasn’t just a policy exercise or a checkbox. We have some concrete outcomes from last year, which include—we’ve been able to configure over 4,000 business requirements in the Dayforce solution, which includes 100% of the collective bargaining agreements and terms and conditions portions. We were able to complete the rigorous testing, including validating over 230 unique scenarios with an 88% success rate at first try. And lastly, embedding accessibility directly into the build of the tool, we’ve been able to meet the accessibility standards at 97.5% of the time, as confirmed by third party experts.

So looking at our current operations, our target was to close in total 112,000 backlogs and priority cases across the three commitments. At the end of the fiscal year, we had processed between 88 to 95% of our goal for each of these commitments, a total of 104,000 backlog cases were processed. It is shy of our goal, but for the first time since 2021, we’ve made a serious dent into the one year plus backlog, being able to reduce 31,000 cases last fiscal year.

The numbers are lower essentially because as we process cases, new ones get added to the queue. So that’s why managing new intake is so important. As Francis mentioned, this is where some of our new HR measures, under the Unified Actions for Pay or UAP, come into play. So although we didn’t hit 100% last fiscal year, we launched four out of seven measures.

And since last fiscal, we rolled out two additional measures. Measures five provides clear guidance for short-term acting EX appointments as Francis mentioned. Measure six, for example, ensures that employee contact information is accurate, which sounds simple but is crucial in establishing a communications channel. And the seventh and final measure will be launched in the next few weeks, which is email notifications of an outstanding action to Section 34 managers, fixing the basic matters to ensure a smoother process now and when onboarding to Dayforce in the future.

Some of you might be wondering why progress seems to have stalled on the AI Virtual Agent and data hub procurement, and this is where we were able to learn from some of our mistakes. So we set up a foundational infrastructure for AI which was great, which didn’t exist before. But as we progressed, we also learned more about where AI will deliver the most value, focusing on helping agents process high value cases. So last year, we also kicked off the procurement process for data hub, but partway through we adjusted our requirements to ensure data sovereignty, making sure employee data stays in Canada, which is obviously an important element, especially in this context.

So as you can see, while we’re not fully there yet, the foundational pieces are in place in the system and the system is being tested, and the rest of these items are all well underway. So, that brings us to what’s next.

The next reporting period is going to be from, obviously, April 2025, and we’re going to report all the way to June 2026.

[Graphic on screen changes to new graphic.]

(Title text on graphic: Commitments: Tracking our progress. Progress against phase 1 commitments (April 2025 – June 2026)*)

(Text on graphic;

Current operations

  • Process Backlog Cases: 102,600 Cases, at 21%
  • Eliminate PSPC Priority and Backlog Cases: 19,000 Cases, at 34%
  • Process Cases leveraging AI and Automation: 160,000 Cases, at 1%
  • Consolidate HR systems across the GC under PSPC: 21 new GC Departments, at 5%

Transformation

  • Build and Validate Dayforce System (Year 2): Build of HR and Pay System Completed, at 41%,
  • HR & Pay Standardization: 50% of GC Departments signed off on processes developed for Dayforce, at 0%
  • Data Hub: Procurement Completed and Build Started, at 14%
  • Data Readiness for Onboarding to Dayforcel: 3 GC Departments, at 19%

*Data as of June 19, 2025)

That’s important because at this time next year, we will be starting parallel payroll testing of the new Dayforce solution. So the 15 months brings us to a point where we will actually be able to compare Dayforce with our current PeopleSoft tools. So this year, we’ll be using eight key commitments as part of our updates until June 2026. So over this period, PSPC is committed to processing over 122,000 backlog and priority cases.

This will include clearing just under 20,000 priority and backlog cases from PSPC, and this efforts going to allow PSPC to also become one of the early testers of Dayforce in joining Shared Service Canada. So we’ve made great progress already, especially as we’ve implemented new automation tools to help expedite select cases and maintain momentum. And as we move into more and more complex cases, the pace of processing is obviously going to slow.

So as mentioned earlier, we’ll use AI and automation to help compensation advisor process cases. From now until June 2026, we anticipate using AI to help process an additional 160,000 pay cases through partial to full automation.

So lastly, similar to last fiscal year, we anticipate continuing to consolidate HR systems across the GC. So this time, we’re looking at adding another 21 departments, including 15 new departments onboarding onto MyGCHR, bringing us to a total of 73 departments hosted on the platform by June of 2026.

We’re also working with six departments on centralizing the management of their existing HR systems at PSPC. All of these things will help create standard inputs for us, which will help us reduce the backlog.

On the transformation side, our focus is going to be to further develop Dayforce to close all the gaps that we identified last year as part of the feasibility analysis.

For year two of the Dayforce build, we’ll be focusing on getting the system fully configured by this time next year so we can start enterprise testing. We’ve already made strong progress on system configuration, and given that some of the work began as part of the feasibility study last year, I’m happy to say that in Q1 we’ve been also able to configure over 1,300 of the documented requirements, representing a roughly 41 completion rate for the build phase.

We’re also scaling up engagement across the Government of Canada to ensure departments have the opportunity to validate the future state, including organizations that’ll participate in workshops next year, or this year I should say.

On our HR and Pay standardization commitment, our goal this year is for 50% of the Government of Canada departments to have reviewed and signed off on the standardized processes for use within Dayforce. This is about ensuring departments provide feedback, comments, and contribute to the mapping of standardized processes that we will configure in the system.

So to date, we’ve conducted 322 collaborative workshops and mapped 169 of our core HR and Pay processes that will be streamlined through Dayforce. Of course as we work with more departments to sign on these processes, we can expect this number to fluctuate because we will be flexible and iterative. So this work is going to be key to unlocking consistency and scalability.

So what I mean by that is, for example, there are 66 different types of letters of offers in our current environment. In the new system, there will be one. One process. One letter of offer. So it’s also to help increase consistency and we’ll wrap up the data hub procurement and start to build in order to give us a single employee profile from hire to retire.

This should mean ends to long wait times when employees transfer departments, like waiting for your lead balances to catch up, for example.

And finally, last year, we ran pilots to make sure that when we move HR and Pay data into Dayforce, it stays intact and complete, and we’ll be making those results public shortly. So now we’re migrating data for our Vanguard departments, so I’ll repeat, PSPC, SSC, and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, in order to prepare them for onboarding onto Dayforce. It’s a big deal. Getting the data right is how we make sure Dayforce works the way we need it on day one.

So in closing, the bottom line is we’re not standing still. Obviously, we’re reducing the backlog. We’ve made a lot of progress and we’ve got a better foundation to work from. This is not going to be another Phoenix, because the work we’re doing is at small scale and transparent. So is it perfect? No. I would be worried, personally, if I was here telling you that everything is. We will fail at times. There will be small failures and we will make them transparent and iterative and continue reporting on these channels. But we’re building momentum the right way with people and transparency at the centre.

So with that, I will now turn it back over to Mitos for the Q&A.

[Video returns to full screen with Mitos San Diego talking from podium.]

Thank you very much for those thoughtful insights. Now it’s time for our Q&A.

As a reminder, this event is recorded and will be posted on our website, so please don’t share any personal information in your questions.

To ask questions, connect to Slido using the QR code and type in the code #GCHRPAY4, or you can simply press the Slido button at the top of your screen. Don’t forget to upvote questions from your colleagues. Even if we don’t get to your questions today, don’t worry, your input is still incredibly valuable. It helps us know what you want to hear for next time and know what we might do to better meet your needs. So don’t hold back, ask away. We’ve got a dedicated team that will go through all your questions after the event to find actionable ways to address them.

Looking at the first question.

I learned about the most recent pay mod updates from a CTV news article on June 12th. May I ask which two departments are part of phase one implementation?

Turning over to the panel.

[Video changes to Alex Benay talking at the table.]

Assuming that’s a ‘me’ question. So we started off with two departments: SSC and PSPC, and over the last few months we’ve been able to add the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. Those three organizations are going to set the standard for any HR and Pay processing for the Government of Canada. So it’s really important for us to start small, which sounds weird saying we’re starting with PSPC and SSC, but when you look at the whole Government of Canada, we want to start with a good sample size in order to set those standards and that whatever we come up with on change management, training, standardization of HR processes, will be done through those three early adopters.

[Video changes to Mitos San Diego talking from podium.]

Good. Okay. Thanks for that. That was very clear.

We’re going to move on to question #2.

Internal buzz is that Dayforce is not better and has a lot of issues, but we are not hearing about it here. Where is the communication disconnect?

Turning over to the panel to see who wants to respond first.

[Video changes to Christiane Fox talking at the table.]

Well maybe I’ll start and I’ll ask my colleagues to maybe jump in. But I think the bottom line is no matter what product or company that we would engage, there will always be issues. By definition, we have complex HR systems within the Government of Canada. We’ve been quite transparent in acknowledging that we will face some hurdles as we migrate and as we modernize and move. And so I think the bottom line is we will be transparent about the decisions that we make and the issues that we face, and we’re confident that we can work through those. And so I don’t believe there is a disconnect other than to say that as we make this transition, now that the announcement was made by Minister Lightbound, we will be in a position to share with you how the migration is happening, what are some of the things that are surfacing with one department that will help inform the work that we do with other departments, and I think that’s an important part of the work of the DM steering committee, the work that’s being done at Treasury Board and PSPC, and every single department who is part of this effort. And so it’s not a communication disconnect, it is absolutely something we’ll be upfront and share with all of you as we make this shift. But we are confident this is a good solution for us, and the feasibility study demonstrated that.

[Video changes to Francis Trudel talking at the table.]

Yeah. I’ll pass this to Alex, but I was going to make a similar comment related to communication. I would not say it’s a communication disconnect, but I think what is very different in our communication is we made the choice from the beginning, and the fact that we are here today is a testimony to that, is that we were going to be transparent from the beginning to the end. So what you’re seeing upfront is you’re seeing the growing pains and the work of putting things in place that are not perfect and all resolved. So we are informing you not only on successful results, but also things we need to work on and maybe that’s where the nuance is in communication. I would see this as a positive thing. We’re reporting on everything we do, the successes, and the challenges.

[Video changes to Alex Benay talking at the table.]

Yeah. I guess from my perspective, I would say I would be worried if the community writ large or the Government of Canada wasn’t a little be sceptical about some of the things we’re reporting. It has been a long journey for everybody. I want to go back, two years ago, we released the viability study that showed all of the gaps that we had. That’s available on our Open Government Portal, so you can go and read that. We then did a year of feasibility to see if we could close those gaps, which we have been able to do, which that report is also published online. So I really encourage everybody to go to our PSPC page and actually have a look at the documentation that’s in there, because a lot of the gaps are identified and we’re trying to be transparent with you. All of those gaps and the closing of them are also being validated by third party reviews that are not the team that are doing it. It’s a completely independent process as well and then it feeds into our governance. Those reports will be made public as they are completed as well. I would encourage you to go because if we have missed something, I want you to tell us. That is part of what we would love to have that kind of interaction with the community. And my commitment to everyone that’s listening, and for every Government of Canada employee, is we will make this the most tested system we rolled out internally. I think we have to, given the history of it. So again, those tests will be made available to everyone.

[Video changes to Mitos San Diego talking from podium.]

Okay. Thanks for that perspective.

We’re going to move on to the next question, again, Dayforce related.

Is the Dayforce capable to serve over 300,000 employees in the Government of Canada? The website is showing the maximum number of 12,000.

[Video changes to Alex Benay talking at the table.]

Okay. So I’ll start this one and pass it over to Francis? No passing over to Francis. Sorry about that. So the answer is yes. I would argue we are in a situation where we are with technology that claims to serve millions of people as well. And so it’s not necessarily a question of can Dayforce actually serve 300—it’s actually closer to 400,000 employees—it’s are we going to be able to adopt the technology the way it was designed as much as humanly possible? And that’s where we failed last time. We are the only organization in the world to have separated HR and Pay from Oracle the way we have, as the Government of Canada. That’s the kind of bad decisions we need to avoid moving forward. So yes, the answer is Dayforce is capable of serving 300,000 employees. They have other large customers around the world with equally complex environments, but the challenge here, if I could kind of answer the other side of the equation is we’re going to have to adapt in order to adopt the organizations. So that means, as I mentioned, letters of offers will have to be standardized, how we hire will have to be standardized, and those are the things that we really want to focus on as well. Not just the technology, but our own HR behaviours in the system.

[Video changes to Francis Trudel talking at the table.]

I was just going to comment, Alex. Like I can’t comment on the technology capacity of a Dayforce. This is more your field than mine, but I was one of those sceptics as well when we started this project about the complexity and ability for a system to take on the size and complexity that we have, and as part of the work that we have done is we’ve done our homework and we’ve actually have gone and compared ourselves to others, to realize that outside of Canada certainly, or inside Canada as well, there are other very large organizations and very complex. And some of them quite frankly, more complex than us in their daily operations, and when you see them being able to operationalize this, because they have a culture of management that is aligned to the system’s best practice, it kind of works. That was kind of my reaction when I saw that question was bringing me back to the sceptic I was when we started to compare ourselves.

[Video changes to Christiane Fox talking at the table.]

My colleagues have answered it very well. The only thing I would say is that the reason why we’ve taken the time that we’ve taken to ensure that Dayforce is the right solution is we’ve really worked through and we’ve said it through these sessions, 150 different collective agreements, serving 100 departments and agency employees working for 100 different departments and agencies. So it was important for us to work through a lot of issues with Dayforce. It was important for us to look at our system readiness, and I think now we’re applying not just what we’ve learned, but the lessons of the past to this process. And so there will be issues, as Alex laid out. But we are confident that we’re doing the work to prepare ourselves to be able to pivot when those issues surface.

[Video changes to Mitos San Diego talking from podium.]

Okay, thank you for that.

So we’re going to look at the next question.

Will the backlog be completed and errors be corrected before we move to the new system? Adopting a new system does not automatically result in clean data.

[Video changes to Alex Benay talking at the table.]

I’m seeing Chris nodding. I was just going to say yeah, you’re absolutely right. Adopting a new system does not automatically result in clean data, so you have a fair point. So yes, the backlog, in order to move a department to the new system, the backlog is going to have to be cleared. That is our current understanding. I just want to be clear. Maybe that changes in the future because there’s a new technology that can address something or we’ve missed something, but right now our current thinking is that we will have to clear backlog in order to move to Dayforce. That’s why we have three Vanguard organizations. That’s why last year we cleared Shared Services Canada’s backlog. That’s why this year we’re focused on PSPC. Happy to report that SSC continues to be “clean” of backlog, so it is possible to continue maintaining sort of that cleanliness, and the goal will be to eliminate backlog with every department before we roll them out because yes, we know last time we moved bad data and then everything fell apart. So this time, we’re not going to make the same mistake.

[Video changes to Mitos San Diego talking from podium.]

Okay. Thank you for that.

Following question, a readiness-related question.

Who will be responsible for training to clients, training to compensation advisors, staffing advisors, etc.?

[Video changes to Francis Trudel talking at the table.]

Thank you for the question. Yes, we’re talking here about change management and getting ourselves ready to onboard, so the training is actually a key component. Just reading the question there shows the complexity of the environment we’re working in and the change that needs to be put in place. So they’ll be operators, like the compensation advisors. They will be human resources practitioners. They will also be managers, but there will also be employees. So basically I’ve talked about every single people in the system that will have to do a little bit of their part. Who will be responsible for that training? Well this is a project responsibility. So you’ve heard Alex and I speak about one project, one team, since every time we’ve spoken to you. This is how we’re going to approach it. There’s going to be some more targeted training that will come in the world of compensation officers, all come from Alex. There will be more about the HR community that’ll come from us.

Just before I pass the floor to you, Alex, I just want to make a comment again about the change management that is upon us. Training is one thing, but training doesn’t solve everything. Training gives you the ability to do something correctly, but the real challenge is actually to implement what you’ve actually learned through training.

There are a lot of people who have gone through all kinds of training these days and it does not necessarily translate into day-to-day behaviour. So that’s another layer of challenge that we have in front of us. So we’re going to ask employees to commit to doing this. We’re going to ask managers to supervise their own staff in accordance to procedures. And we’re going to need to insist that HR practitioners align to new ways of doing things as well. Just not learning it, but actually applying it.

[Video changes to Christiane Fox talking at the table.]

Yeah. The only other thing I would add to that is, and I completely with Francis, it is about training and the applications of how you learn and what you learn. But I think, as we spoke about earlier, this is a bigger change management. It’s a shift in our culture. And I think that the clerk, the secretary to the Treasury Board, myself, and deputies around the table and heading departments and agencies, will have to roll up our sleeves and get this done and ensure the right messaging to teams, whether it’s the deputy head, the associate, the head of HR, the groups that are managing this, the people that are inputting the data, this is about shifting the way we work and it is about a change from how we operated to what we need to do to have a successful integration into Dayforce. And I can assure you that those messages are being shared, and they will continue to be shared, for this to be successful. 

[Alex Benay speaks off camera.]

Okay. Go ahead.

[Video changes to Mitos San Diego talking from podium.]

Okay. Thank you for that great perspective.

Next question.

Could you share what barriers the project is currently facing aside from the backlog?

[Video changes to Alex Benay talking at the table.]

It’s never good to punt problems up, but I don’t know Chris, if you want to take a stab at this as co-chair of the deputy minister sponsoring group?

[Video changes to Christiane Fox talking at the table.]

I think that here are some reflections on some of the barriers. I talked about the important culture shift that is required and every single department and agency manages a number of priorities on a day-to-day basis, and I think that what we have to ensure in terms of the success of this program is that this remains at the top priority of every single department and agency. And you can see when you’re dealing with priorities of government urgent situations and operational context in serving Canadians, these are all important things, but one of the factors of success will be that every department and agency buys-in to the clear direction from the Treasury Board and PSPC to make this successful.

And I think the constant need to remind our colleagues of that, I think, is something that is ongoing and I think that would be sort of that culture shift from moving from the way we used to do things to moving towards the way we need to do them going forward. All of you have been involved in change management. I would say that that is a barrier. It’s not something that will be insurmountable by any means because you’ve got the dedication of a number of people across the government to make this happen, but I do think that is a big thing to overcome and something we will work at continuously.

The other barriers that I would identify are the complexity of the systems in which we operate, the negotiations that we have to undertake with unions in terms of some of those changes. These are very real. They have a very material impact on our flexibilities, and so all of the steps will need to be taken.

And the last would I would say, and my colleagues may add more, AI and the use of technology is essential to our success, but it is also an unknown in the context of what we learn. So having the ability to apply, to pivot, to learn from the technology, where it is helpful, where we can run into issues, I think will be a part of the challenge and I think it’s absolutely essential that we do it. We are committed to using AI to get through this, but I do think it will be, at times, challenging. So I will stop there and see if others want to jump in.

[Video changes to Francis Trudel talking at the table.]

Maybe just quickly a variation on the same theme. When I saw the question, the first thing that came to mind was we need to see ourselves first as an enterprise and not as individual departments. And we have so many things in our system that is structured counterintuitive to that, for good reasons. We have a delegation system that actually makes departments operate on their own, making their own operational decisions for the best benefits of their own operations. That makes a lot of sense.

When we’re talking about project like this one, it’s actually a little bit counterintuitive, but we’re going to have to push ourselves to think first as an enterprise. And what that actually means in concrete terms is sometimes we will need people to accept to do things that is better for the enterprise even if it’s not necessarily the best thing for their own department individually. And that’s hard. If that is not an example of a culture shift that Chris was referring to, to me that is the number one challenge that jumped to mind.

[Video changes to Alex Benay talking at the table.]

Yeah, agreed. Like our uniqueness has caused us problems, and at times our uniqueness—and when I mean that by the way, it’s regarding to systems and technology not anything else—but it’s caused us problems from a system’s perspective, because if we continue to be this unique, there is absolutely no system on the planet that will ever be able to do our HR and Pay. So there’s this understanding that we’re a collective, as Francis and Chris have mentioned, is super important.

The other one I’d say is understanding how to manage risk and failing, I think has been really interesting with this project. We tend to want to know the absolute final cost of everything or the colour of the pen in nine years, and we’ve done a deliberate effort with the help of the deputy minister community to break this down into much smaller bite sizes, which I appreciate can be frustrating when you’re trying to get answers from us sometimes because we just won’t know that next step, but we’re trying to stay focused on the immediate step right now. And so understanding that process has been a bit of a change to everybody, I think, and adding the transparency. So like we don’t have all the answers for that, but I would, I guess, preach a little bit of patience as we continue to evolve, and if there’s anything you need then let us know. But understanding how we continue to break this project down into smaller bites and doing it faster into smaller bites is going to be a continued thing that we’re going to have to keep looking at because so far, it’s worked fairly well.

[Video changes to Mitos San Diego talking from podium.]

Okay. Thank you, we appreciate the thoughtful answers.

We’re going to move on to the next question.

Is there an effective date in mind for Dayforce to be fully implemented as our new pay system?

[Video changes to Alex Benay talking at the table.]

There’s a little bit of foreshadowing. We see the questions in advance. It’s not fair. I have full disclaimer. Well, we see one question in advance. But the answer is no. We don’t know yet for, because I’m just looking at the question, fully implemented. We know that in June at this time next year, we’re going to be starting parallel payroll testing that’ll take us three, most likely six months, and then we know that we’re rolling out the Vanguard departments for another six months after that.

So in parallel, what we’re doing is we’re making a whole bunch of assumptions right now. Okay, what will the rest of the rollout look like assuming success with the three Vanguard departments? How do we do it in three years, five years, seven years, nine? How does that all come to play? I will say, though, that the biggest dependency we’re going to have is when we need to make sure the departments are ready. Is your classification structure up to date? Do you have double banked positions?

There are a lot of things that departments are going to have to do from an HR perspective to get ready and that’ll probably be the biggest challenge we’ll have to collectively manage to come up with a final date with a whole bunch of other assumptions around it.

[Video changes to Christiane Fox talking at the table.]

Yeah. I think that’s exactly where it stands, and I think we’ll have to see how, you know, those early adopters, how quickly is that system integrated to help inform the decisions about, you know, how else do you onboard? What are some of the things that we learned through those first departments that perhaps other departments can implement right away knowing that that’s an issue that may surface in the migration effort?

So I think the best approach is to start the process, see how those early adopters, what the transition looks like. And then if we can actually scale up, then we do. If we have to kind of scale down to see how we need to pivot, then we do that. But I think it is important for us to take into account the early learning’s before we commit on a date for full implementation.

[Video changes to Mitos San Diego talking from podium.]

Okay. Thank you very much.

Following question.

It’s been mentioned in the last quarterly meetings that Phoenix is stabilized and that the backlog is getting smaller. If this is the case, then why change systems?

[Video changes to Alex Benay talking at the table.]

I mean it’s a fair observation. I promised the team I wouldn’t do any analogies and I lied. So if you’re trying to cross the ocean and you are in a rowboat that is missing an oar, your boat might be stable, but it doesn’t mean it’s the right tool for the job to cross the ocean. So that’s the situation we’re facing right now. The current system in the way that it was deployed is not sustainable. It is legacy technology, which will eventually disappear and we would have to get off of it in one way or another. So those are some of the reasons why we’re going to be making the change. And through the work that we’ve also done, lastly I’d say we’ve proven through viability and through feasibility that Dayforce can actually do the job. So for example, we’re looking at nine cloud extensions, which are uniqueness to our systems that may or may not change over the course of time, like certain things are unique to government. We have over 300 of those with the current system.

So just to give you an idea of clearly that system is not made for the task, we have 3,000 customizations in there that we have to manage on top of that. So all those are some of the reasons why doing the change makes sense.It doesn’t mean we’re taking our eye off the ball on backlog and making the current system as smooth as possible, but we have to do both in parallel. And we did make the decision not to go big bang. By that, I mean cutting off one system to completely move to the next because that’s also a lesson we’re learning from last time, which means we’re going to have to run both of these in parallel and make them as good as possible, both of them in parallel.

[Video changes to Mitos San Diego talking from podium.]

Anybody else wanted to weigh in? No? Okay. Good answer. Thank you for the answer and the analogy.

Next question.

Is there a possibility that people will get overpaid or not paid in the process of switching systems, as such what happened when we moved over to Phoenix.

[Video changes to Alex Benay talking at the table.]

Okay. I mean, clearly there was an announcement two weeks ago on Dayforce, so it’s great. Listen, the answer is sure it could happen, but we’re going to make sure that it doesn’t. That’s why we want clean data. That’s why we want the transactions approved. That’s why we’re doing some of the unified actions for pay, which including the email notification one is coming out. That’s why we’re doing all the work we’re doing in the current environment to make sure that when we press the transfer button that people are “clean and whole”. And then back to Chris’ earlier point, the Vanguard departments are going to be super critical, because that’s going to be our testing ground to make sure that we have it right before we look to deploying anything else around the system. 

[Video changes to Francis Trudel talking at the table.]

Yeah. Not much to add to this. We have to remember when we manage these things or these processes or this massive operation that pay is in a large organization like ours, there’s always going to be a little bit of a backlog. There was a backlog before 2016. There will be something, you know, a small backlog is not unhealthy. What we’re living through now is not what we’re referring to. But I think, Alex, when we you talk about our ability to pay people in a fairly accurate manner, I think that speaks to the stability of the environment, that speaks to where we are now, but that doesn’t mean that there won’t be a little bit of glitches. I think that’s the only caveat that I would put. We don’t compare ourselves to zero errors. We compare ourselves to something that is manageable and not what we currently have.

[Video changes to Alex Benay talking at the table.]

Yeah. And one thing I would add is there is no sector that has zero pay errors. I think what we want to do is do better at resolving the pay error, ASAP, and not like this concept of a one year backlog that’s where we begin to be different and that’s what we have to eliminate. So with the new system we already know, for example, that there’s a full audit log. So we know where the mistakes and the errors are going to have taken place. Right now, any error is a forensic audit that we have to look into multiple systems with different data. It’s just, it’s a forensic audit. The new system will say exactly here’s the audit trail and here’s where the error happened. So that, to me, is our goal here.

[Video changes to Francis Trudel talking at the table.]

And it speaks to the previous questions, right? This is part of the reason why we have to go to something else is to make sure that if everything that we do where you have a little less manual intervention, standardized business processes, a healthy, sustainable system will minimize those risks of these kinds of errors happening. It doesn’t eliminate them, but that’s another good reason to suggest a change, even if things are stabilized now.

[Video changes to Mitos San Diego talking from podium.]

Okay. Thank you for that. There are lots of good questions here. We’re moving on to question #11.

Will an employee pay have to be made whole before transferring over to Dayforce or are the outstanding issues placed into Dayforce as is?

[Video changes to Alex Benay talking at the table.]

Okay. Yeah. Again, great questions. If you see us struggling, it’s just because we’re trying to figure out who answers first. But yeah, the answer is the goal will be to be made whole. We’re looking at, for example, changing the service model of the Pay Centre right now. Not changing—sorry before anybody—before I get back home and get in trouble. We’re looking at different ways of resolving cases. So do we resolve the cases by PRI, so that we look to tackle one person’s personnel record identifier and clear all the cases as opposed to what we’ve been doing right now, which has been case by case. And the reason we’re looking at that is exactly because of the question. If we can make an employee whole, that’s obviously the state we want to be in before moving over to Dayforce, so we have to start looking at some of these service questions. As we speak, we have help coming in to the Pay Centre to look at the model and we’ll be having recommendations—we’ll be getting recommendations in place into the fall as that, but it’s exactly in line with the question.

[Video changes to Christiane Fox talking at the table.]

Yeah. And the only thing I would add to that is it’s absolutely essential that we start Dayforce, clean. And to carry over a number of issues, I think, would be hugely problematic for the employee in question, for the department, the system, and our efforts. So I think it is in our interest and the employee’s interest for us to transfer a clean pay file as we move to Dayforce.

[Video changes to Mitos San Diego talking from podium.]

Okay. Thank you.

Next question.

With the rise in cyber security attacks, hacks, or major systems and personal information being stolen, how does Dayforce compare in terms of security?

[Video changes to Alex Benay talking at the table.]

No, that’s another great question. The security’s been baked into the design at the outset with everything we’ve done. So we’ve thrown, and we will continue to throw, the Government of Canada’s security book at Dayforce. And what I mean by that is when we were testing, it was against certain security standards and so far, everything’s been met or surpassed. There will always be cyber incidents and cyber-attacks. Dayforce is a large organization that invests heavily in their cyber security defences, and they partner with other companies that are serious about it as well. So as part of the assessment of this year, the plan is to continue and finalize all of our security assessments to make sure that we are in a stable security posture as possible. The other thing we’re looking to do when we talked about the data hub is to see how we can protect the Government of Canada employee data as an add-in even more sovereignty to it and another layer of defence to that as well. So security is front and centre, the same way we’ve baked in privacy, the same way we’ve baked in accessibility into the design and into the requirements, security is at par with that.

[Video changes to Christiane Fox talking at the table.]

I’m glad you just mentioned that because I think what has to be a clear message is that the Government of Canada had specific requirements for Dayforce to meet in order to be selected, and cyber security and the security of the system was obviously one. Accessibility, you know, we’ve got very specific requests that they have been able to answer. So I think we will always, as a government, have to be working with our CSE, our Community Security Establishment, or Communication Security Establishment, our CIOs, any type of interaction that we have with the private sector in the context of cyber security. I think we are attacked every single day, and so that commitment has to remain high not just for Dayforce, but for our own sort of teams working on the protections that are required, but this was an essential part of our decision-making and our selection.

[Video changes to Mitos San Diego talking from podium.]

Okay. So we appreciate the thoughtful answers.

These have been great questions, and this is the last question for today.

Once we are on Dayforce, when we have issues, I don’t want AI to be responsible to handle our questions and concerns. I want a real person.

[Video changes to Alex Benay talking at the table.]

That’s a tough question because for every one of those we get, we also, to be transparent, get the opposite, which is I don’t want to talk to a human, I just want to chat away and find an answer. So we’re going to do a lot of usability testing around when I say the service model, that’s exactly what I’m talking about. Does the Government of Canada want to get served more through chat, through phone lines? All those things. It’s not just a tech project. I think Chris mentioned it earlier. It is a cultural shift in how we do things. So my response to your question would be we’re probably going to use both. It’s not going to be one-size-fits-all. We’re going to want to use multiple sizes for this and there is no wrong door kind of an approach. That is, for sure, I think if there was a starting point from a strategic perspective where we would start and then we can refine that as we go through. But there is zero intention of removing humans from the loop on this. I just want to be very clear.

[Video changes to Christiane Fox talking at the table.]

I would echo that sentiment. I think there is huge benefits from the ability to leverage AI to manage maybe some inquiries, some basic functionality, things that will help us have a performing pay system to support our employees, however, we also appreciate and frankly, all of us as employees of the Government of Canada, do want to interact with a person, an employee, who can support us at times when things are a little bit more complex or we’d require a little bit more intervention. And so, as Alex noted, I think our commitment is to be balanced in our approach and leverage the benefits of AI and leverage the exceptional staff that can support our employees through their pay inquiries and pay situations. So it’s going to be a combination.

[Video changes to Mitos San Diego talking from podium.]

Okay. Thank you, that was really clear. There are so many great questions.

Can we squeeze in one more for the panel? Okay.

How will transparency be handled in preparation to the launch, to ensure warnings from testers are not suppressed and ignored per the OAG report on Phoenix?

[Video changes to Francis Trudel talking at the table.]

Maybe I could start. I was probably one of the rare ones that was in that business in 2016 and I’ve experienced this from the inside, and I think that statement and that question is true. There was very little space in order for people to speak up or have a view into what actually was unfolding, and this is partly why Alex and I have kind of moved into as much transparency as we could from this, sessions like this certainly. We’ve got government structures up the yin yang where we have stakeholders actually invited to the sessions, heads of HR, for example, who knows the business much more than we do on the ground levels. We have engagement systematically with unions as well, allowing people to raise concerns and issues. We want to hear about it. So I think that is the things we’re putting in—the different mechanisms we’re putting in place in order to avoid what actually happened last time and allow a place for people who actually know the business to be able to raise red flags when they see them.

[Video changes to Alex Benay talking at the table.]

I’ll add, because otherwise we’ll be in a weird situation where we have to take another question because of time, so if only for that. And Francis talked about transparency, so last years—all of our test results from last year are being published in the July document release. So again, I’ll encourage you to go check out the webpage, go check out the Open Government Portal. Every single test is there with the answers. Every single test we’re going to do this year will be released quarterly as well, and every test we’re going to do as part of Vanguard will be released. And again, the goal is if we’ve missed something, we want to know. It’s actually the opposite of what happened last time. We’re going a full 180, where I want to use, frankly, all of your expertise because you may or may not be involved in the project to help us make sure we land this. I think it’s in everybody’s best interest.

The second thing is more theoretical, but we’re working really hard with the projects to push decisions down, not up. And I know that sounds a little bit weird, but to Francis’ point, like it’s the HR community that knows what they’re talking about. It’s not because the deputy minister signed off on it. It means that there’s an actual expertise out there, and that’s what we want to do. And that’s a little bit of a part of the culture change that Chris alluded to as well, like we have to change how we work and not just what we do, and that’s also part of it. So those directors and managers are encouraged to engage with all the communities as well. Frankly, if I had my way, we would just work out of the firewall completely with this project where it makes sense. So if you have any ideas or suggestions or recommendations, you are the experts in your fields and that’s the stuff we’re going to want to know. But do check out the portal because all the information is there as a starting point.

[Video changes to Mitos San Diego talking from podium.]

Okay, thank you. That concludes our Q&A session. Thank you all for your active participation today.

Before we close, here are few ways to stay updated on HR and Pay, and get involved in our future engagements.

Visit Canada.ca/gc-hr-pay for today’s updates and our fourth quarterly progress report along with quick links to documents on the Open Government Portal.

Follow our Facebook page: facebook.com/GCEmployeePayBenefits for the latest news in HR and Pay advice.

Interact with our Reddit account that aims to answer your questions. For future engagement opportunities, register for the HR and Pay Employee Consultation Pool to be contacted for user consultations.

And if you haven’t already, please check out our final two questions today on today’s Slido poll, sign up to receive a newsletter for updates on HR and Pay directly in your inbox.

[A graphic takes up 60% of the screen and a small square still remains of Mitos San Diego on video in the top right corner.]

(Title text on graphic: Thank You!)

(Text on screen: Email us your comments, questions, feedback, and suggestions: TPSGC.DonneesGCH-HCMData.PWGSC@tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca

Learn more at https://www.canada.ca/gc-hr-pay

Sign-up for the HR & Pay newsletter!)

The first edition will be going out later today.

Thank you again for joining us today, and a special thanks to our speakers and the event management team for ensuring the session ran smoothly.

We’ll be in touch with more updates in the fall. Have a great rest of your week.

[The graphic takes up 100% of the screen and the video of Mitos San Diego disappears.]

(Text on screen: Check us out: Web: canada.ca/gc-hr-pay, Facebook: /GCEmployeePayBenefits, Reddit: u/GCPay_PayeGC)

(Text on screen: ISBN 978-0-660-78135-8, Catalogue P4-156/2025E-MP4)

(Public Services and Procurement Canada signature)

(Canada Wordmark)

End of video

Questions and answers addressed during the French session

Given the ongoing pay issues with Phoenix, won’t launching a new system increase employee anxiety? Who would like to go first and break the ice?

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.

After nine years of Phoenix, we are still having trouble getting pay procedures. Will the training and procedures be ready go live?

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.

I am concerned about the use of artificial intelligence. How could the problems caused by the system be addressed? Could someone say “manually” fix them?

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.

Why approve the Pay Centre going into the 2017 overpayments, outside the six-year timeframe, instead of prioritizing more recent years?

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.

GC is focusing on many key initiatives. How will you ensure that improving the pay system remains a priority?

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.

Workforce adjustment is a topic that affects many departments. Can we expect further cuts and how would this affect human resources?

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.

How will the Treasury Board Secretariat support departments and agencies during the transition to a new pay system?

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.

Will you also be reviewing your processes and not just the IT system, because there are people who have had their pay cut without any warning or choice?

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!

Page details

2025-08-29