Federal Government Services and Policies

[Williamoforange]

It should also be pointed out that if transit access was a priority that could be a achieved in numerous sites outside of Ottawa central business district, while still giving access to the suburbs, exurbs, and rural areas.

Such as south keys, Algonquin college, Queens view drive,..... Or the already existing on LRT line east Ottawa service center.... Which seems to have been left out of this talk of moving service centers to the CBD.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

It should also be pointed out that if transit access was a priority that could be a achieved in numerous sites outside of Ottawa central business district, while still giving access to the suburbs, exurbs, and rural areas.

Such as south keys, Algonquin college, Queens view drive,..... Or the already existing on LRT line east Ottawa service center.... Which seems to have been left out of this talk of moving service centers to the CBD.

I did mention the Place d'Orleans location earlier today as an example of a good location for both drivers and transit riders. I also mentioned Merivale is a bad location and that Bayshore or Barrhaven would be better alternatives.

Originally Posted by J.OT13

==SNIP==

It's strange to me how Downtown is not obviously the most convenient location for the greatest amount of people. Sure suburban locations are also important, but Downtown is accessible on foot by about 50k residents and 100k workers, and has the greatest accessibility by transit for probably close to about half a million who live walking distance from the O-Train or Transitway/Rapibus.

Place d'Orleans is accessible as well for anyone in the east end by car or on transit.

Merivale is likely the least accessible location. Better to have it at Bayshore or Barrhave on the Transitway.

I don't think anyone is arguing that Downtown should be the only location, but it should be a location for the best possible coverage.

If we're unable to add a Downtown location, then maybe Merivale could eventually be moved to Lincoln Fields as a very car accessible location that also serves as a major transit hub where two transit lines come together (in 5 years).

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

If you if the service can be accessed online they're is less of a need for walk-in appointments, which is your reasoning for why it must be in the central core.

Second more people live & work outside of the central business district of Ottawa, as the service area for these buildings is far reaching. The next available one is Kingston or Montreal. (Rural ones such as arnprior, Smith falls & etc, only do 20 day mail)

Yes, I am for intensification because the services already exist there to support more then the current population (nvm that property rights exist). So ignoring your hand waving away, there already exists an in person centre in Hull which is a 10 min walk from place du portage, with (for Ottawa at least) a significant number of buses that pass by ad well. Which is better service than the majority of the people in Ontario get.

Anyways, if you want to argue that a new passport office should be opened in Ottawa Central Business district go right ahead, but no we shouldn't be moving either the Ottawa WEST or EAST service centers, that serve the larger suburban, exurban & rural population of eastern Ontario.

Your post ignores the fact that the passport office was moved out of downtown in the first place. It fits a pattern in Ottawa of moving services from downtown to the outskirts while encouraging more people to live in walkable, transit-friendly central locations. Car-centric thinking at its finest.

None of the locations that you mention in your second post, and particularly South Keys and Queensview, are remotely as transit-friendly as downtown. Anything at the end of a transit line involves much longer trips from almost everywhere in the central city, and it's particularly bad for those who don't live on one of the lines.

The claim that the services already exist downtown to support a larger population is simply not true. Downtown already trails well behind the suburbs in terms of investment in recreational facilities, community centres, parks etc., and the City has made little to no investment in these areas because "the majority" lives elsewhere. No one particular place, just elsewhere. Encouraging more people to live centrally while providing poor services is not a recipe for a livable city.

As for your statement that the outlying locations serve the "larger" suburban, exurban and rural population, now we are apparently comparing the population of 6 sq km with that of 2800 sq km, while ignoring all of the people that work in the 6 sq km for good measure. So yes, I guess we are serving a larger population if that is your point of comparison.

Edit: Out of curiosity, I just did a quick search of passport office locations in other cities. You know who has an office downtown? Every single other major Canadian city, with the exception of Hamilton. Even places like Halifax, London and KW have passport offices downtown. Ottawa is quite unique in its suburbanization of the service, which should be a bit of a red flag.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The federal government's job is to deliver services for Canadians. Being Ottawa's sponsor is not its main gig. Worse, Ottawa makes nonsensical choices that makes life hard for federal employees. The solution shouldn't be to throw more good money at a city unwilling to fix the problem.

Let's be clear. A lot of the issues with transit here are a result of deliberate underfunding and city mismanagement. The city wants low taxes and a car centric lifestyle. That's a choice. The federal government doesn't want stressed out employees taking an hour to get to work. Both sides can get what they want when the employees are moved out of the NCR.

Unlimited decentralization will not improve government services to Canadians.

We have all heard the false narrative that work from home was more efficient. There were all kinds of negative consequences. Not the best for managing and mentoring employees, team work, and for some people, negative mental health consequences of being holed up at home every day.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Unlimited decentralization will not improve government services to Canadians.

We have all heard the false narrative that work from home was more efficient. There were all kinds of negative consequences. Not the best for managing and mentoring employees, team work, and for some people, negative mental health consequences of being holed up at home every day.

Agreed, more decentralization (including to satellite hubs in the hinterland) is not going to improve services. The private sector has already realized that in most places outside of the Ottawa bubble.

You'll also end up with a lot more travel the more you decentralize, and that is not a great way to drive efficiency. Just fix the LRT. It really isn't rocket science and it's not a basis for a wholesale policy shift.

I'd also note that building a national capital that Canadians can be proud of is 100% a job of the federal government.

[YOWflier]

Decentralization has been an unmitigated disaster of budgetary waste, operational inefficiency, and destruction of morale, across every example I’ve seen. The only ones who support it are the employees who benefit from it and those who have an anti Ottawa axe to grind like some on this very board. The experiment needs to end.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The federal government's job is to deliver services for Canadians. Being Ottawa's sponsor is not its main gig. Worse, Ottawa makes nonsensical choices that makes life hard for federal employees. The solution shouldn't be to throw more good money at a city unwilling to fix the problem.

Let's be clear. A lot of the issues with transit here are a result of deliberate underfunding and city mismanagement. The city wants low taxes and a car centric lifestyle. That's a choice. The federal government doesn't want stressed out employees taking an hour to get to work. Both sides can get what they want when the employees are moved out of the NCR.

Agreed that the federal government job does not include being loyal to the city of Ottawa, and it should move FULL department out of Ottawa when it makes sense.

Full remote work outside of specific jobs is a bad idea, but that said, fully back in the office is a bad idea as well. Especially when management is terrible at theret job, and from the outside that seems to be the biggest problem with the feds.

But let's be clear here, the city of Ottawa by large are federal gov workers, the state of this city is how federal gov workers want it. They want suburban living, car centric sprawl, with transit just for getting them from the front door to work & not anything more. (See lrt friend)

The number of staffers I've argued with about the increasing density of centretown/westboro & inner greenbelt is too many.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

But let's be clear here, the city of Ottawa by large are federal gov workers, the state of this city is how federal gov workers want it. They want suburban living, car centric sprawl, with transit just for getting them from the front door to work & not anything more. (See lrt friend)

The number of staffers I've argued with about the increasing density of centretown/westboro & inner greenbelt is too many.

Well, to be clear, a large majority of Ottawa residents are not federal government workers. Do you have any basis for saying that government workers prefer suburban living in greater numbers than the general population? I’ve never gotten that impression.

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

. . .

The number of staffers I've argued with about the increasing density of centretown/westboro & inner greenbelt is too many.

If you find yourself arguing the same issue with "too many" people; maybe it is time to re-evaluate the point that you are trying to present, and determine if, in fact, you are not the one who needs to change their opinion.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by phil235

Well, to be clear, a large majority of Ottawa residents are not federal government workers. Do you have any basis for saying that government workers prefer suburban living in greater numbers than the general population? I’ve never gotten that impression.

Yes, roughly 25% of employed people work for federal gov in Ottawa. By far the largest single employer in town. Then add in origin & destination surveys, the real world results speak louder then people's words....

Also going to point out here, your idea in regards to urban development are quite skewed considering you've argued against a zoning for higher then 9 stories south of gladstone.....

So your idea of what urban living is, is well suburban in nature.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

If you find yourself arguing the same issue with "too many" people; maybe it is time to re-evaluate the point that you are trying to present, and determine if, in fact, you are not the one who needs to change their opinion.

I don't know what point your going for, but mine was that public servants in there choice of living prefer suburban.

And as for changing I'll follow the data this is a city of a million not my personal fiefdom as nimbys view it.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

Yes, roughly 25% of employed people work for federal gov in Ottawa. By far the largest single employer in town. Then add in origin & destination surveys, the real world results speak louder then people's words....

Also going to point out here, your idea in regards to urban development are quite skewed considering you've argued against a zoning for higher then 9 stories south of gladstone.....

So your idea of what urban living is, is well suburban in nature.

Right, because anything under 10 stories on a main street is « suburban ». You might consider reflecting on why you are struggling to convince anyone of your points.

Also not sure what origin-destination surveys tell you about the propensity of public servants to prefer suburban living, unless you are making some pretty big assumptions.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

Agreed that the federal government job does not include being loyal to the city of Ottawa, and it should move FULL department out of Ottawa when it makes sense.

Full remote work outside of specific jobs is a bad idea, but that said, fully back in the office is a bad idea as well. Especially when management is terrible at theret job, and from the outside that seems to be the biggest problem with the feds.

I never said anything about remote work. I said move departments out. There's no real reason that the Department of Fisheries has to be based in Ottawa and can't have 90% if their staff in Halifax, for example. Just leave some ministerial and intergovernmental functionaries here. Why is Transport Canada in Ottawa and not in Montreal where the Aerospace sector is substantially based? And where ICAO literally has their head
Headquarters?

Was great during COVID for my organization. We got way better talent when we could hire from anywhere in the country. We managed to get talent that just doesn't exist in Ottawa. That existence has convinced me that this has to be the way the public service goes eventually. And if there's an upside to Conservative government, it would probably be policies in this direction. COVID and the return to office has generated great data on who needs to be in Ottawa....

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

But let's be clear here, the city of Ottawa by large are federal gov workers, the state of this city is how federal gov workers want it. They want suburban living, car centric sprawl, with transit just for getting them from the front door to work & not anything more. (See lrt friend)

The number of staffers I've argued with about the increasing density of centretown/westboro & inner greenbelt is too many.

Let's be honest. So much of the Public Service here is just a self-licking ice cream cone for Ottawa-Gatineau residents. So that lifestyle preference of the Public Services reflects the suburbanites they are hiring from the NCR. I'm fairly sure the Bank of Canada employees working in say Toronto probably take the GO train to work like other bankers. More of Finance should probably join them in downtown Toronto.

But yes that long term direction aside, it's ridiculous that the federal government and the city can't work out a deal to centralize more employment in the core. That makes commutes ridiculous. Doesn't help that the city is particularly cheap and incompetent on the only thing proven to reduce traffic: transit.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I never said anything about remote work. I said move departments out. There's no real reason that the Department of Fisheries has to be based in Ottawa and can't have 90% if their staff in Halifax, for example. Just leave some ministerial and intergovernmental functionaries here. Why is Transport Canada in Ottawa and not in Montreal where the Aerospace sector is substantially based? And where ICAO literally has their head
Headquarters?

Was great during COVID for my organization. We got way better talent when we could hire from anywhere in the country. We managed to get talent that just doesn't exist in Ottawa. That existence has convinced me that this has to be the way the public service goes eventually. And if there's an upside to Conservative government, it would probably be policies in this direction. COVID and the return to office has generated great data on who needs to be in Ottawa....

Let's be honest. So much of the Public Service here is just a self-licking ice cream cone for Ottawa-Gatineau residents. So that lifestyle preference of the Public Services reflects the suburbanites they are hiring from the NCR. I'm fairly sure the Bank of Canada employees working in say Toronto probably take the GO train to work like other bankers. More of Finance should probably join them in downtown Toronto.

But yes that long term direction aside, it's ridiculous that the federal government and the city can't work out a deal to centralize more employment in the core. That makes commutes ridiculous. Doesn't help that the city is particularly cheap and incompetent on the only thing proven to reduce traffic: transit.

I'll leave the moving ministries argument but some world examples of that suggest it causes extreme fragmentation as departments move from the centre of power.

I think you make an important point that Ottawa Civil Servants are extremely subruban oriented because they are risk adverse. They are also cheap. Self licking indeed. Meanwhile they also tend to ignore citiy politics other than voting for mayor. Leaves us with a small cabal of urban oriented bureaucrats and councillors with a population that wants to drive and go downtown twice a year. Perhaps worst of both worlds. But in some ways this isn't unique to Ottawa just the proportions are a bit different. Even in Montreal people want a pathc of grass and to drive. They force through bike lanes and there is a higher car free population mostly because of poverty but also because of choice. But most still drive and complain about the loss of parking and congestion from destroying the road network yet vote for more of the same.

[J.OT13]

This is one of my biggest frustrations; sending Federal workers back to the office after we've spent 5 years investing in a hybrid work future getting rid of office space and converting offices from 2.0 to 3.0 shared desks. You need the space, people need their own personal work set-ups with a bit of privacy, a place to hang their coat and keep their personal items and ergonomics, which was a big thing for about a second before Covid hit. Even Covid itself you would think have encouraged more space between people.

I do hope that this might push the Feds to commission a few new office buildings, maybe at Zibi and LeBreton. I would also love to see that last big parking lot across Place de Ville redeveloped.

Federal government might have to acquire new office space for public servants, analysis finds

PSPC will also find underused spaces to allow return to office four days a week

Estelle Côté-Sroka · CBC News · Posted: Apr 17, 2026

After years of talk about shedding office space, the federal government will need more work stations in some locations with public servants headed back to the office four days a week in July, according to an analysis by Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC).

The department responsible for managing government buildings is looking to quickly find solutions, which could include renewing existing leases, optimizing underused space and even acquiring extra office space if the current portfolio doesn't meet the requirements, said spokesperson Michèle LaRose.

When asked by Radio-Canada if these potential acquisitions could mean purchasing space or buildings, PSPC declined to comment.

While PSPC is working with government departments to define their operational needs, public service executives will have "no difficulty" reporting to the office five days a week starting May 4, Larose said.

Executives will be followed by all other employees, who will be required to work in the office four days a week starting July 6.

In cases where workplace adjustments are needed, "concrete solutions will be implemented quickly and responsibly,” wrote Laurent de Casanove, director of communications for Joël Lightbound, the minister of government transformation, public works and procurement, in a French-language statement.

July date still the plan

“As a taxpayer, it's frustrating that the government is going to go spend money signing new leases, finding new space,” said Sean O’Reilly, president of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC), a union that represents 80,000 public servants.

O’Reilly told Radio-Canada he'd prefer the government discuss how to provide a flexible hybrid work environment, especially now that Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Liberal government has a majority and doesn’t need the support of other parties in Parliament.

Even so, O'Reilly also said he was "fearful" that with that majority, the Carney government "might be more heavy-handed with some of these policy decisions."

In February, the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat — the employer of the federal public service — did not deny that the date unionized employees need to return to the office could be reviewed, particularly due to space issues.

But in recent days, secretariat spokesperson Martin Potvin has reiterated the government's "intention" that those employees work on-site four days a week starting July 6.

Lightbound’s office, meanwhile, maintained that an increased workplace presence both strengthens collaboration between teams and improves the quality of services for the public.

Will spaces be ready, union asks

For a decade, the federal government has been looking at different models, including telework, to reduce its office footprint, O’Reilly said.

He wondered what kind of conditions public servants will have if the government rushes to add more work stations.

“[Are] these spaces actually ready for people to work in?” he asked.

Lightbound's office didn’t say whether the four-day-a-week return would force the government to revise its goals for reducing its office portfolio.

The government is still working to “modernize” its real estate portfolio by optimizing the use of space and reducing costs for taxpayers, wrote de Casanove.

In the 2024 budget, former prime minister Justin Trudeau’s government committed to reducing its office portfolio by 50 per cent over 10 years, a move that was expected to reduce both costs and greenhouse gas emissions.

That same year, after reviewing how much space federal department and agencies would need, the government changed its target. It's now expected to reduce its office space footprint by 33 per cent by 2033-2034.

This figure has not been revised since the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat announced its new return-to-office timeline in February.

On its website, PSPC said the shift to a "hybrid work environment" combined with "the government-wide plan to apply unassigned seating as the default" would let space be used more effectively.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/fe...public-servants-analysis-finds-9.7167296

[phil235]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

This is one of my biggest frustrations; sending Federal workers back to the office after we've spent 5 years investing in a hybrid work future getting rid of office space and converting offices from 2.0 to 3.0 shared desks. You need the space, people need their own personal work set-ups with a bit of privacy, a place to hang their coat and keep their personal items and ergonomics, which was a big thing for about a second before Covid hit. Even Covid itself you would think have encouraged more space between people.

I do hope that this might push the Feds to commission a few new office buildings, maybe at Zibi and LeBreton. I would also love to see that last big parking lot across Place de Ville redeveloped.

I'm not sure about commissioning new buildings, but this is a pretty good opportunity to list available existing space at really good rates.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by phil235

I'm not sure about commissioning new buildings, but this is a pretty good opportunity to list available existing space at really good rates.

I assume the Feds shed a lot of the Class C office space and I doubt they'd take that back, and honestly, for the sake of public service workers, I hope they don't.

Terasses reopening will give the Feds some flexibility, but the bit of Portage reopening will likely be swapped for more of Portage closing.

[Truenorth00]

I would expect freezes and cuts going forward. Not more space allocation. Especially as AI gets deployed. The Feds are most ripe to save from automation. And the former banker PM is well aware of how outsized our federal public service is. Especially after his time in the UK. We're larger per capita than the UK and US while doing a lot of similar functions at lower efficiency.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I would expect freezes and cuts going forward. Not more space allocation. Especially as AI gets deployed. The Feds are most ripe to save from automation. And the former banker PM is well aware of how outsized our federal public service is. Especially after his time in the UK. We're larger per capita than the UK and US while doing a lot of similar functions at lower efficiency.

We do compare poorly to some extent on international comparisons but per capita is kind of misleading for many functions. How much more work is it to buy 150 F35s v 88?

AI can in theory help people write faster but a lot of that just creates more work as it's analzing and reacting to the work of others that takes the most man hours. The Eco, GBA+ folks create a huge amount of exponential work and this would also be true for those looking at other issues. If we need to look at every issue through a trade policy and CUSMA lense for example. We might add 20 trade policy folks but they are going to create thousands of man hours for other departments.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I would expect freezes and cuts going forward. Not more space allocation. Especially as AI gets deployed. The Feds are most ripe to save from automation. And the former banker PM is well aware of how outsized our federal public service is. Especially after his time in the UK. We're larger per capita than the UK and US while doing a lot of similar functions at lower efficiency.

The US doesn't have anywhere near the social net Canada has and the UK doesn't have the vastness of Canada. Neither have the immigration figure. Both have bigger (and in the case of the US, far bigger) militaries.

It's really hard to compare.

The Public Service needs a major rebuild, but that's aspect that hasn't particularly impressed me under Carney so far. Seems to be a classic slash and burn Conservative approach.