The federal government’s recent push to bring public servants back to physical offices, mandating at least three days per week of in-person presence, lands amid a glaring absence of supporting evidence. The Privy Council Office has yet to release any concrete data showing that productivity lagged during the remote work period. In fact, several 2023 studies, including one from Stanford’s Institute for Economic Policy Research, suggest that hybrid work models maintain or even boost productivity, particularly for knowledge-based roles. The policy shift appears to prioritize optics over outcomes.
Beyond the numbers, the human impacts are difficult to ignore. Over the past three years, many federal workers have reorganized their lives around hybrid or fully remote work, citing improved mental health, better work-life balance, and more inclusive conditions for people with disabilities and caregivers. Forcing a return to pre-pandemic norms not only disrupts this balance but risks undoing hard-won progress around workplace accessibility and equity. A February 2025 survey by the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada found that 61% of respondents felt the new in-office requirements harmed their well-being.
Climate considerations add another dimension to the debate. The federal civil service is heavily concentrated in urban cores like Ottawa-Gatineau, where commutes significantly contribute to CO2 emissions. Remote work, even part-time, had a measurable environmental benefit, reducing car usage during peak hours. Reinstating strict in-office mandates undermines Canada’s stated commitments under the 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan — a dissonance that has not gone unnoticed by climate policy advocates.
Unions such as the Public Service Alliance of Canada have pushed back sharply, citing both the lack of consultation and the opaque rationale for the decision. They’ve pointed to international examples, from Finland to New Zealand, where public institutions have adopted flexible-by-default frameworks. These systems treat remote work not as an exception to be tolerated, but as a viable and often preferred model — backed by data, supported by infrastructure, and designed with worker input in mind.
This return-to-office policy looks less like a response to organizational needs and more like a symbolic assertion of managerial authority. “Presenteeism” — the belief that productivity is tied to physical presence — remains a politically comforting fiction for some. But comfort is not the same as evidence. In reimagining the post-pandemic public service, we have the opportunity to let data and compassion lead. So far, this policy does neither.
