Alex Benay: Okay. Well, I'll get started. For some context, Dayforce was one of three final solutions we evaluated within the Government of Canada, and the reason it was chosen was precisely because Dayforce made a commitment to ensure that the solution would be bilingual. The Dayforce solution is implemented worldwide. So, it’s available in more than two languages, but we did our tests with the official languages and the solution is fully bilingual. On the other hand, what I would say to you is that the work we're doing in artificial intelligence and automation within current payroll operations is all about numbers. It's not even words. So, we want to make sure that the calculations we implement with our automation systems are really based on numbers. So, there's a little less impact from a language point of view. I won't go into the Report of the Commissioner of Official Languages. To be quite frank, I haven't read it. Then, I'm sure there are other challenges with artificial intelligence, also with official languages, but regarding the project as such, Dayforce, is completely bilingual. Current payroll operations are really based on numbers. So, that's what the machines do best, I'd say. So, we feel comfortable enough to move on at this point.

Francis Trudel: Without knowing exactly the rationale for the question, certainly not to talk about artificial intelligence, but in a more macro way, I would say that—a little earlier, I mentioned that the employer was talking about the necessary requirements to accommodate in a solution—just to reassure the Francophone audience, since I'm thinking in terms of the question. It's very, very, very clear that there will be no compromise on requirements. We don't accept any compromise on official languages in the administration of this project, whether it's the way the system processes information or the way in which we’ll interact with the clients who will use it. And that's something that Alex's team and ours are very clear about. So, I don't know what the question refers to specifically, but I just have to reassure you that there’s absolutely no compromise on requirements.

Alex Benay: It's ironic. This is a very nice translation of the question we had in the English session. Almost word for word! So, I'm going to say the same thing. The aim here is—we have always said we were in the process of implementing a technological platform that integrates human resources and payroll. According to the Goss Gilroy reports, we’re the only entity in the world that has technologically separated an HR platform from a payroll platform, in the way we did. Our aim is to reintegrate them. Okay, so, if you have an integrated HR and payroll platform, you also need an integrated HR and payroll service. So, the aim of the pilots, of the pilot projects for the 10 departments we're going to choose—because we still haven't chosen them—is to see what it looks like, to bring the pay service closer to the HR service, which is already provided in the departments, so as to offer even better service to civil servants throughout our system. So, I could tell you that we could make decisions about the future of the service model we’re implementing with presentations, PowerPoints. What we're more interested in doing is having real pilot projects, with real data, with partner departments that will have direct access to the Pay Centre, so that we can see the results of this data, and those of the pilots. Then, make an informed decision, instead of having a decision based on analysis, which may or may not be good, but which is certainly not based on actual facts. So, it's more of a practical approach that we want to use over the next few months.

Francis Trudel: Perhaps I'll just share with you a personal perspective, a little, on this question. As someone who has been in the human resources field for a very long time, those of you who have experienced it will recall that the Pay Centre has experimented with several centralization versus decentralization models over the last few decades. The reason I'm so enthusiastic about this pilot, or these initiatives, is first of all because Alex clearly mentioned it: we're bringing payroll and human resources closer together. So, that's one component, but I think it goes further than that. We're also bringing payroll and human resources closer to the decision-makers who are themselves delegated, i.e., those accountable for managing the administration of human resources in the departments, i.e., the Deputy Ministers. So, I think there's a kind of logic in this proximity. There are obviously risks that need to be managed, i.e., just because there will be interaction between decision-makers and human resources and payroll in the departments doesn't mean they can configure things as they please. Standardization has to be maintained for the reasons we discussed earlier, but I think there's added value in experimenting with this pilot.

Christiane Fox: Thank you for the question. I'm aware that this is on the minds of many public servants. I think that right from the start, when we made our management decisions, we always said that we would assess the return to the office on an ongoing basis to have an idea of the pros and cons. And then, productivity—as you mentioned in your question—and how we do and perform our work in the service of Canadians, and also in the delivery of our mandate. We all know that the current context is enormously difficult for the country. Tariffs, major projects of national interest, diversification of our economy. All these major files are really at the heart of the performance of our teams, of the performance of the public service, and we really have to meet the challenges. So, it's not just a financial issue in terms of savings, work, telework, but we really have to look at all of the considerations, as I said. The delivery of service to Canadians. So, this is an important issue. This is a question that concerns us in the context of the assessment of our work. Then, I think we have to do our best to be a public service that supports Canadians at home and abroad. So, the issue is: ongoing assessment. Thank you.

Alex Benay: I'll start with the first part of the answer, then I'll probably go back to Francis for emotional, intellectual support, sorry! Listen, what I can tell you is that things are looking up. But that doesn't mean we're there. Okay? We have not reached our final destination. We get about 1.6 million transactions per year. We have a pay system efficiency rate of 98.4%. Our arrears of over one year are 130,000, and if we can stay on course, they'll be down to 80,000 by June. The smallest backlog we have had since we launched Phoenix. So, I can tell you that I'm very proud of the Pay Office and the work they're doing with the Transformation Team. It's not perfect. Mistakes are made, but when I see them happen, I know we can correct them quickly. Unlike—I'll give you some more statistics. The overpayments. Did you know that over 70% of the overpayments are due to the fact that a manager or an employee has failed to properly submit their request for Leave Without Pay? So, we have a department—which I won't name, because if I do, I'll get into trouble—with 8,800 transactions older than four months, waiting for a manager to approve a request for Leave Without Pay. So, if I tell you that I'm paying 98.4%, and that the transaction hasn't been entered in four months, that means that there are 8,800 cases of overpayments of more than four months in that department. When we say that we can't continue to separate human resources and payroll, as we have been doing for the past eight years, it's an example, I'd say that is quite striking, that there are over 70% of overpayments. This is the kind of example regarding our request for Leave Without Pay. So, for it to stop, because it's not a payroll problem. This is a human resources management problem. It’s a communication problem. So, this is type of transaction we receive at the Pay Center that clearly prevents us from processing pay errors. So, I'm going to turn to Francis, but I can understand your frustrations, but I can also tell you that I see people working hard just to be able to solve problems.

Francis Trudel: My perspective on the question is that I have to disagree with the premise, I think, of the question. The premise of the question suggests that we don't assume responsibility for the complexity of the system. I'd say if that's what you've heard, it's certainly not what we want to convey. We recognize the complexity of the system. We need to simplify it. It's part of the first pillar I was talking about. We need to address it. It's not easy when all these complexities arise from negotiated employment conditions. So, they need to be renegotiated to simplify them. So, we focus on them. So, there’s recognition. The other premise—the question I disagreed with a little—is that there's a kind of search for blame, that is, who is actually to blame for the problems. I would tell you bluntly that what is being referred to is a diagnosis of the whole process which indicates that everyone in the process has a role to play in order to improve the system, and that everyone therefore has a role to play in the problem we're facing. And yes, that includes human resources practitioners. And yes, that includes managers. Not all, but some. This includes the central directives of which we’re a part. So, we have—in fact, the message I think we're trying to send is that when we diagnose the problems and changes we need to make with a cool head, both at the systems and cultural levels, these elements are factually true, but please don't hear in that answer that we don't recognize that the complexity of the system needs to be addressed and that people working at the compensation level don't need adequate support.

Alex Benay: Yes, I have one. Well, I think it will be better in French than it was in English, but we'll be close to the same explanation. We're budgeted until March 31, 2027. So, it's clear that in our financial projections, we indicate that will go from 4,000 to 750. We haven't made our next budget request to implement Dayforce, in order to continue our payroll operations. If I may be honest, it's the same situation we had 18 months ago. We’re funded every two or three years. So, we need to demonstrate our financial goals for that period. I can tell you that there's no point in going from 4,000 to 750 employees, but it's a financial exercise that we have to report on. Our budget request, we're going to submit it once we're well established, once we have done our parallel testing, I'd say, of Dayforce and Phoenix to make sure everything's going well. We'll be submitting a budget request in the near future, that's for sure, and we'll be continuing with our operational services as well.

Francis Trudel: I can start with part of the answer. Obviously, I'm not the Comptroller General. So, I'm not in a position to speak about the completely legal aspect of the component, but what I would say to you is that indeed the premise of the question is true. When there’s an overpayment that exceeds a certain time limit, which is a six-year period, it’s statute-barred—sorry, I don't know the translation of what the legal stop is that would allow an employer to authorize or secure funds. What is often misunderstood about overpayments, however, is that just because a six-year period has passed, the debt to the Crown has not disappeared. The debt to the Crown remains. It exists. This is money that was given to individuals who have received funds that were paid by the Crown and that are not owed to them. These funds, which are not due, are part of the debt, and the employer must—and here I emphasize must—take every possible measure to collect these funds, even beyond the six-year period, but obviously without the legal status to do so. So, the fact that we continue to search for and ask people to acknowledge an overpayment that is not owed to them, that was given to them over a long period of time, continues to add to a debt to the Crown that does not disappear just because time has passed.

Alex Benay: Okay. We're going to—well, I guess between me, then Francis? Well, I don't know, Chris, if you want to add something? I might start. I think, if I can be very honest, I think we made a fundamental mistake when we designed Phoenix and our current HR system. We have a centralized Payroll Department, and we have a decentralized HR Department. If anyone wants to help me find an example in the history of our Government where this works exceedingly well, let me know, because we're obviously very interested. But in the meantime, we haven't found any. So, as I mentioned, we're in the process of implementing an integrated HR and payroll platform. We're definitely going to have to take a look at our HR and Payroll Departments, and see what we can do with them. That's why we do our pilot projects. So, in January, we'll be returning certain transactions to the departments, including overpayments, for example. The example I mentioned earlier. We have our ten pilots for direct access to the Pay Centre, where we’re going to try them out starting in January, and also, we have two pilots we're implementing for the redistribution of Compensation Agents within two departments: PSPC and Shared Services. Through the three types of pilots, I hope that by spring we'll have some real experience. Then numbers, real numbers, as I mentioned earlier, to enable us to make a future decision about what we're going to do about, I'd say, the division. That's where I agree with the question we have created, not arbitrarily, but that we created in the past in relation to how we implemented our payroll services.

Christiane Fox: But, I think that—maybe I'd add, but I'm not an expert in human resources and payroll. What I noticed right from the start, when I first got involved in this file, was that this division—which was articulated in the question—is parallel. So, an integrated platform means we'll have to think about an integrated service. Then, we'll have to change the way we work. That's why the group really emphasized the question of our system's culture and also people's willingness to work differently. So, how do we manage this integration? It's really about looking at the elements of the culture that are going to be needed, in order to initiate a change in approach, which means change management, which means training, tests, testing in an environment where people can work together to see what works, and what doesn't work so well. And that's what's going to ensure that the state of our preparation, all the work we're going to do when we make our final decisions, will really enable us to have a transformation that will be more effective for people who work in the resources and payroll environment and people who receive human resources and payroll services. So, I think that is an excellent question. It’s part of our discussions to make this important transition with an integrated approach.

Francis Trudel: Not a lot to add. I also agree somewhat with the question. In my own experience, the times when payroll worked best, I'd even say when human resources worked best, were when this proximity—or this silo—did not exist. I'll just go a little further with the question and also with the idea of the question. Well, I'd say it’s a proximity or a silo that is abolished between human resources, payroll and the managers who are delegated. That's why I spoke earlier of my enthusiasm for pilot projects, which would bring all these components somewhat closer together, but I think that the work is indeed moving in that direction.

Alex Benay: Yes, listen, I'll answer the question, and then really focus a little on the ticketing system. We brought in a team of consultants to look at our operations. This report will soon be available to the public. The committee members had a chance to review it, and we also sent it to employees this week. Then, one of the findings that the team of consultants noted was that our ticketing system—and I'm going to use the word archaic a lot—and yes, it causes a lot of problems. Then, when we have a ticket entering the system at the Pay Center, sometimes, it's like you say, the hand off is not always done right. We currently have a call for tenders to indeed replace our ticket management tool and also our case management. The intention is to get details from management by the holiday season or perhaps in January. So, ask your question again in January, for a slightly more in-depth update on this point, but it’s an item we're well aware of, and which we're currently addressing through a call for tenders.

Alex Benay: Okay. I'll start on this one too. I'd say that it’s currently an ongoing conversation. We had conversations with Thoma Bravo, which is the very company that had acquired Dayforce. There are several different bills in the U.S. that, in theory, could give access to Canadian data on cloud systems and the like. Okay. First, there's a technological answer. We'll be able to make—pardon my anglicism—a description of our data. So, we'll be able to ensure that our data is managed in a technological way, and that no one has access to it other than Canadians or the Government of Canada. Moreover, we also have launched a call for tenders. I'd say right now that it’s active for what we call our hub, for the management of Government of Canada personnel data. It's going to be a centralized solution, completely sovereign, managed by Canadian companies and Canadian employees, with total sovereignty, to ensure that at the same time, we're able to manage Government of Canada personnel data in a sovereign way. Then, we'll even be able to provide updates on the project, precisely at our quarterly updates.

Christiane Fox: Well, I think that's a very good question. And I hope you'll be relieved by the measures we have put in place, because Dayforce Canada Limited is really a Canadian entity. We have to keep this in mind. It must also comply with Canadian privacy legislation. So, that's an important point. Beyond that, we also need to make sure that Dayforce 's contract and activities are going to be in line with the Government's integrated cybersecurity strategy. Then, as Alex noted, there will be regular checks as the project is implemented. So, that's a really good question. Then, we'll continue to ensure compliance.

Christiane Fox: Yes, I can start. I think, of course, that our role as a public service is to give our best advice and to carry out the decisions of the Government. I think what we can tell you, in terms of the mechanisms that will be in place, it’s really focused on readiness. So, there's a lot of work to be done to see how we can make this transition a success. What can we learn from the lessons of the past, so that we can apply them to the present? Well, this is testing. As we noted earlier today, we carry out the tests on a regular basis. To ensure that each department is ready. So, to really begin in phases and not to all start at once. Run parallel pay cycles in both systems to ensure that the transition is made only when we're ready. Then, as I mentioned earlier, it's really about making sure people are ready for this change. Then, there’s ongoing assessment to avoid Phoenix mistakes. And finally, as the Clerk noted in his messages, it's really about taking responsibility. Each Deputy Minister must take the lead in their department, to ensure that they are ready to move this transition forward. So, I think the measures we have put in place mean that the system is very aware of the responsibilities they have to ensure the transition so as to best serve their employees.

Alex Benay: Perhaps I'll just add to that by saying that all the testing we have done is currently available online on our portal. And, all the testing we do will also be available on our portal. A third party will be brought in to assess the testing results. So, don't take our word for it, we will actually have an independent assessment to validate the system's success. I'll just reinforce a few points that Chris mentioned. We also have many other things besides the system to deal with.

We have talked a little about the service model today. So, thank you for your questions. We need to review this, because if we put the current system on the service model we have now, it will work better. It may not necessarily work as well as it should. So, we have to look at the service model. We also need to look at the standardization of HR processes. So, there’s a lot of work to be done, I'd say, not only technological, over the next 12 to 18 months.