The new year has arrived with a familiar directive echoing through government offices across Canada: come back to your desk full-time. For tens of thousands of public servants in provinces like Ontario and Alberta, flexibility that once felt like a permanent shift in how work gets done is being rolled back, almost overnight.
As of January 5, Ontario’s provincial government employees are expected to be in the office five days a week. Alberta will follow in February, framing its decision as a way to “strengthen collaboration, accountability and service delivery.” Similar language has been used before, often without convincing evidence that five days in the office actually produces better outcomes.
What’s striking is not just the direction of travel, but the speed and certainty with which some governments are moving while others remain cautious. Manitoba, British Columbia, and New Brunswick continue to allow hybrid arrangements. Newfoundland and Labrador, along with the Northwest Territories, are reviewing their policies without rushing to impose full-time office attendance. The contrast raises an uncomfortable question: if flexibility works in some jurisdictions, why is it suddenly unworkable in others?
At the federal level, uncertainty reigns. Prime Minister Mark Carney has promised clarity “in the coming weeks,” but so far has offered little detail beyond vague assurances that office requirements will depend on role and seniority. For now, federal public servants remain under the existing rule: three days in-office, four for executives. Even Treasury Board President Shafqat Ali has admitted that nothing has been finalized.
Meanwhile, the private sector is pushing ahead. Major banks like BMO, Scotiabank, and RBC now require four days a week in-office, while Amazon has gone all-in, demanding five days as of January 2. These decisions are often framed as inevitable or necessary, as though flexibility were a temporary indulgence rather than a proven way of working.
Unions, unsurprisingly, are pushing back and they have a point. The Ontario Public Service Employees Union has criticized the province for ordering a full return without acknowledging the realities faced by frontline workers. The Public Service Alliance of Canada has gone further, calling Ottawa’s approach “severely out of touch” and warning that it is prepared to fight any sweeping changes, including in court.
Academic research backs up the frustration many workers feel. Catherine Connelly, a professor at McMaster University, notes that while remote work isn’t perfect for everyone, many employees find it saves money, boosts productivity, and improves quality of life. Others may struggle with isolation or blurred boundaries but that argues for thoughtful, flexible policies, not blunt mandates.
There’s also a talent risk that governments and companies seem willing to ignore. Highly skilled workers increasingly value flexibility, and organizations that insist on rigid attendance may find themselves losing the very people they want to retain. Ironically, businesses may eventually respond by micromanaging remote workers instead adding rules about childcare or constant availability rather than trusting employees to manage their time responsibly.
Beyond individual workplaces, the return-to-office debate has real economic and environmental consequences. Downtown cores like Ottawa’s suffered when public servants stayed home during the pandemic, while suburban and regional economies grew. Forcing everyone back into dense urban centers may revive coffee shops and lunch counters but it also worsens traffic congestion, strains transit systems, and increases greenhouse gas emissions.
Even Ottawa’s mayor has suggested a middle ground, saying that adding “a day or two” in the office is feasible. Liberal MP Bruce Fanjoy has echoed the call for flexibility, arguing that spreading workers out benefits local economies and helps governments manage office space more efficiently.
The pandemic proved something many leaders now seem eager to forget work does not need to happen in one place, five days a week, to be effective. The question facing governments and employers in 2026 is not whether people can return to the office full-time, but whether they should.
A forced return may fill office buildings, but it risks emptying workplaces of trust, morale, and talent. If the goal is a modern, resilient public service and a competitive private sector then flexibility shouldn’t be treated as a problem to be fixed. It should be seen as progress worth protecting.
