Sisters, Brothers, and Friends,
Over the past few days, rumours have been circulating that the federal government is seriously considering forcing employees who currently work remotely—partially or entirely—to return to the office full time.
Yesterday, some media reports suggested that the Carney government is indeed looking at increasing in-office presence to four days per week in 2026 and to five days per week as of January 1, 2027.
During a meeting held yesterday with the Commissioner of the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), I raised the issue. The Commissioner assured me that he had heard nothing from the Treasury Board regarding any changes to the Directive about on-site presence.
According to a well-informed government source, who is not authorized to speak publicly, the federal government is currently discussing how best to deliver services to Canadians. Well, the best way to deliver quality public services is to have enough employees to do so.
The latest federal budget contains cuts of roughly $60 billion over the next five years across the federal public service. The government plans to get rid of 40,000 public workers. This is not how you improve service.
If the government moves forward with a full-time mandatory return to the office, it would be a serious mistake. First, it would be a blatant waste of public funds. The government is already spending significant amounts on office renovations and new furniture, even though the majority of employees are on a hybrid work schedule (2 days per week at home / 3 days at the office). Bringing everyone back full-time would require spending billions more and reversing recent decisions to sell off buildings and terminate leases. And this would all come after massive investments to equip employees for remote work.
Instead of spending billions of dollars of public funds to purchase or lease buildings, the government should invest that money in keeping more public service workers employed so they can provide better service to Canadians.
Such a decision would also be unrealistic, irresponsible, and disrespectful.
Unrealistic, because there is already a severe shortage of space to meet current needs following the chaotic and disastrous forced return to the office three (3) days a week.
Irresponsible, both from a financial standpoint and because of the significant increase in traffic it would cause in several major Canadian cities. In the Ottawa–Gatineau region alone, traffic is already extremely difficult on the days when federal employees must report to the office. Parking spaces are scarce. Public transit service is insufficient. If the government imposes a five-day-a-week return to the office, it will be a true nightmare. Such a decision would also be irresponsible from an environmental standpoint. It clearly shows that the environment is not among the Carney government’s priorities.
And it would be deeply disrespectful to federal public service workers. The government knows full well that an overwhelming majority of employees greatly value remote work. In fact, telework was a central issue during the last round of negotiations for employees of the Treasury Board and the CRA. Our members even voted overwhelmingly to strike in order to secure telework protections in their collective agreement. In the current round of bargaining, telework remains a key issue—our members have made this abundantly clear.
Employees appreciate remote work for many reasons, the most important being improved work-life balance. They spend more time with their families and less time on unnecessary commuting.
In fact, there is no valid reason to force federal public service workers back to the office full-time. Such a measure would harm employees by diminishing their quality of life and burdening them with additional expenses. It would be a terrible decision for Canadian taxpayers, both in terms of the use of public funds and its very negative environmental impact. And it would not, in any way, improve the performance of the public service.
So why is the government considering this?
It seems increasingly clear that the motivation is purely political. The Government House Leader, the Honourable Steven MacKinnon, has been telling anyone who will listen that Treasury Board officials will be the ones making the “decision.” Such a claim is absurd and insulting. Who could seriously believe that senior officials would force the federal government to spend billions on buildings and office furniture while angering the vast majority of its workforce?
In the same breath, Mr. MacKinnon claims there is a broader trend among private companies and other levels of government toward full-time office work, and that the federal government will likely follow that trend.
Instead of trying to please Ontario Premier Doug Ford, Ottawa Mayor Mark Sutcliffe, downtown businesses, and local Chambers of Commerce, the federal government should listen to—and respect—its employees and their union representatives.
The President of the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) has demanded an urgent meeting with the President of the Treasury Board to discuss this issue and raise our concerns.
We will continue to monitor the situation closely and will update you immediately on any developments related to this important matter.
In Solidarity,
Marc Brière
National President
Union of Taxation Employees