Canadian public servants are increasingly being called back to the office, reversing remote work habits that took hold during the pandemic. While some view this return as a necessary step toward restoring pre-pandemic norms and fostering collaboration, others are questioning whether the benefits outweigh the logistical and motivational costs. This pivot is being overseen by the Treasury Board Secretariat, which established a government-wide hybrid work model — but so far, results appear mixed.
The move is reshaping work culture across the federal public service. Departments are grappling with new guidelines, while employees weigh the implications on flexibility, morale, and work-life balance. Public reaction has been polarized, highlighting the challenges of managing vast workforces with diverse needs. With morale and productivity at stake, this issue is rapidly developing beyond a workplace policy into a broader socioeconomic debate.
Return to office policy at a glance
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Policy | Mandatory presence in-office at least 2–3 days per week |
| Implemented by | Treasury Board Secretariat |
| Applies to | Federal public servants across departments and agencies |
| Start timeline | Gradual implementation started in early 2023 |
| Objective | Boost collaboration, improve service delivery, maintain unity in federal work cultures |
| Pushback level | Moderate to high among unions and employees |
What changed this year
Early in 2023, the Treasury Board issued a directive requiring employees in federal departments and agencies to return to the office at minimum two to three days each week. The policy was designed to unify a fragmented framework that had previously left telework decisions to the discretion of individual departments. The aim was to reestablish a consistent, collaborative workplace culture that leaders argue is critical to both employee development and effective governance.
This change came amid broader discussions about the productivity and wellbeing of Canadians working remotely. Officials supporting the change believe that in-person interactions promote greater innovation, mentorship, and accountability across teams. However, critics have argued the move is premature and fails to consider the evolving expectations of the modern workforce.
Why the policy is facing resistance
The return-to-office policy has seen robust opposition from employee unions and several public servants who argue that the mandate is disruptive, unnecessary, and logistically flawed. Critics say productivity remained high during remote work, and enforced hybrid schedules are undermining both trust and employee autonomy.
“Employees have proven they can perform at a high level from home. This mandatory return feels more symbolic than strategic.”
— Placeholder, Union Representative
Unions have also raised concerns about equity. Workers residing far from urban centers or with caregiving responsibilities argue the policy doesn’t consider personal circumstances. Issues like long commutes, mental health strain, and increased costs are adding to the discontent. Additionally, some federal buildings are not yet fully equipped for hybrid models, creating inefficiencies rather than resolving them.
Departments most impacted by the mandate
While the return-to-office requirement is generally broad, its impact has varied significantly across departments. Agencies in the core public administration — which includes ministries such as Health, Finance, and Immigration — are most directly affected. Crown corporations may follow their own internal policies, adding another layer of complexity to the federal work environment.
Some departments have implemented creative workarounds, such as hot-desking or rotational attendance, to comply while minimizing disruption. However, others have faced challenges in managing the real estate footprint, tech infrastructure, and supervisory capacities needed to adequately support a hybrid workforce.
Government’s rationale behind the mandate
In defending the return-to-office policy, senior officials point to the importance of in-person collaboration and cohesion. They argue that certain elements — particularly mentorship, experiential learning, and live feedback — are diminished or lost in remote settings. Moreover, there is concern among leadership that a continued absence from physical offices could erode public servants’ engagement with institutional values and diminish accountability.
“We want a work environment that fosters collaboration, connection, and growth. That’s hard to replicate digitally.”
— Mona Fortier, President of the Treasury Board (placeholder quote)
From a managerial standpoint, standardizing hybrid work brings clarity and consistency, reducing the confusion that emerged when departments had varied policies. Leaders believe this structure is essential for long-term strategic planning, particularly with an evolving workforce and demands for digital governance.
Arguments in support of remote work
Opponents of the mandate argue that remote work provides multiple benefits, including better work-life balance, reduced commuting costs, and higher flexibility. Many federal employees adjusted to home-based work models during the pandemic and have since built routines, schedules, and environments that align with their efficiency and well-being.
Critics of the policy cite technology as a key enabler: with secure VPNs, virtual collaboration tools, and performance-tracking software, there’s little operational need requiring in-office attendance for many roles.
“The tools are already in place. For most knowledge work, geography isn’t a limitation anymore.”
— Placeholder, IT Director, Federal Department
In addition, remote work has opened recruitment possibilities to broader regions, helping departments fill labor shortages or highly specialized roles. By narrowing the policy scope, opponents argue the government risks losing talented professionals who seek flexible arrangements.
Winners and losers under the new model
| Winners | Losers |
|---|---|
| Urban-based public servants commuting short distances | Rural workers with long commutes |
| Managers seeking increased team visibility | Caregivers with rigid time constraints |
| New hires who benefit from in-office mentorship | Experienced staff preferring independent workstyles |
| Real estate operations recapturing underutilized office space | Teams adapting to reduced desk availability via hot-desking |
Implications on mental health and morale
The shift is also having **significant mental health implications**, particularly for employees who had built remote-centric routines tied to mental clarity, caregiving, or disability accommodation. Forced re-entry to office environments is contributing to stress, uncertainty, and feelings of loss in autonomy.
Surveys indicate that morale has dropped in departments where sudden transition was handled without adequate consultation. Some teams report rising absenteeism, reduced engagement, and growing friction as roles that flourished in digital settings adjust back into traditional management frameworks.
Is the new model here to stay?
Whether this model represents a transitory phase or a permanent future remains uncertain. While public servants re-adapt to partial in-person work, debates around productivity, equity, and retention persist. For many, the hybrid return is viewed as a compromise rather than a solution — a middle ground between past and future public service models.
A future reassessment is not off the table. Treasury Board has indicated it will continue to evaluate the policy’s effectiveness. This includes examining employee feedback, departmental efficiencies, and real estate cost-benefit outcomes. The stakes are high, especially as the federal government seeks to modernize its workforce and remain an attractive employer amid heightened public scrutiny and talent competition.
Frequently asked questions
When did the federal return-to-office policy begin?
The policy began its phased implementation in early 2023 and affects public servants government-wide with expectations of in-office attendance 2–3 days per week.
Who does the policy apply to?
It applies to all core federal public service employees, although Crown corporations and some arm’s-length agencies may set their own standards.
Are unions involved in opposing the policy?
Yes, multiple public sector unions have raised concerns, citing productivity proof during remote work and demanding more employee-centered decisions.
Can exceptions be made for unique circumstances?
In specific cases, such as medical needs or caregiving responsibilities, exceptions may be negotiated, but they are not guaranteed.
How is the government measuring success of the return?
Metrics include employee engagement surveys, departmental performance reviews, office space utilization rates, and feedback from managers.
Could the policy change again in the future?
Yes, the Treasury Board may revisit the policy based on workforce trends, employee feedback, and operational assessments to ensure it aligns with long-term goals.