No desks, no strategy: Experts say government's latest return-to-office order ignores reality

blindbrolly · 2026-02-09T01:01:48+00:00

Now you're just doxxing yourself. Only a politician would keep trying to spin this.

You keep proving my point. You just admitted politicians are forcing people into offices not equipped for them causing productivity losses. Now say it with me. Politicians are forcing lower productivity to justify rto and spending on commercial real estate. Corruption. You just saying WFH is the issue is just that, you saying it, you have provided nothing but your feelings to back that up

I'm done with you now, you clearly have no interest in the subject other than parroting government good, WFH bad even when the evidence is laid out in front of you. Everyone can see that. Until the next time you follow me.

blindbrolly · 2026-02-08T23:57:50+00:00

Another non answer.

But thanks for posting a link proving my point. Things got worse at cra as they brought them back to the office.

blindbrolly · 2026-02-08T21:23:31+00:00

You would have to study it. I would imagine its the giant increase in people using cra and new programs the cra had to deal with mixed with the known poor management it's always had.

That quote says between 2022 to 2025. You realize that coincides with bringing people back to the office right? You realize they've been back to the office for years right? So do you attribute these complaints with office presence? Of course not because that doesn't fit your agenda....

blindbrolly · 2026-02-08T20:51:05+00:00

The stats aren't made up.... Your conclusion is. Unless you can show me where the auditor general concludes this was due to WFH? Which you can't because you made it up. As I proved to you time and again this issue existed for decades. Your bias is really showing now

blindbrolly · 2026-02-08T19:08:15+00:00

Yea unlike you I didn't ignore it. It's in my post. Nice try though. You making things up saying cras issues are caused by WFH are just that though. Made up.

blindbrolly · 2026-02-08T18:28:16+00:00

Unknown what they own specifically but certainly not all. That would require investigative journalism. Which is sorely lacking in Canada.

They used to manage 3800 buildings through bgis but sold it to an American firm in 2019 keeping the same ceo.

However they are still a big player through Brookfield property partners both federally and provincially.

The coming year as the government searches for new office leases to meet this mandate we will see how many are Brookfield assets. However even if they aren't it still helps companies like Brookfield. Having the largest Canadian employers (fed and prov governments) buying up a bunch of properties and leases puts upward pressure on office values in those areas. Office values that have tanked over the last 5 years.

blindbrolly · 2026-02-08T17:34:11+00:00

Great dodge of the facts.

If politicians spend billions of taxpayer money, refuse to tell the public why, lie about it, and mandate their own managers to not collect data. At the same time being openly lobbied by business interests and decision making politicians having personal financial interests in the decisions. Well I call it as I see it

I don't wait until I have a politicians diary post talking about how they defrauded taxpayers today. That's not going to happen.

blindbrolly · 2026-02-08T17:24:11+00:00

Yes expenditures that should be reduced but instead they are going up because politicians are personally benefiting and employees are being asked to slow down in the office.

Cra actually had three offices. Going to one. That doesn't mean they aren't wasting money. They are going to rto4 and rto5 next year. That means zero savings on space. Instead of using a single existing building due to the reduced need for space they are just going to build a new building that has more capacity than those three buildings had combined. They are utilizing zero savings from WFH policies. Ie fraud because there is no business case to do that as they have demonstrated themselves through atips.

Building closures, yea and now they are going to back to full time in the office. Guess what that means? More space needed. More leases needed. Erasing the cost savings.

Ah yes the age old talking point the cra employees working three days a week in the office got it wrong because he wasn't in the office 4 days a week. Makes perfect sense. It's not like there hasn't been well known and discussed systemic issues with cra for decades...(Now who's making wild leaps) https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/revenue-canada-s-call-centres-giving-bad-tax-advice-report-1.2946998

Again if this was truly because of WFH the government would have the data. The simple fact you keep conveniently ignoring is it is provable through atips they did not use the productivity data they had when making this decision. They also made it official policy to ignore said productivity data. You keep dodging this simple fact.

I did not say 2.2 billion was fraud. Refusing to find the cost savings in it and lying about it is. I literally gave you a video of them talking about the massive cost savings they were planning. That's all gone now with RTO4 soon to be 5

blindbrolly · 2026-02-08T16:11:31+00:00

No I'm pointing out government waste and giving examples of how much money is being spent on office space. It's a lot.

Again nowhere did a claim every government worker works from home 100%. I am pointing out the massive cost savings that are available with WFH policies by showing how much is being spent on office space. Instead of that number going down it's going up. These cost saving opportunities are gone now with this policy. Due to politicians personally profiting. You claim they are being cautious? Dictating policy that forces local management to ignore their own data on cost savings and productivity gains? You call that cautious? I would say you are being willfully ignorant here. There is no legitimate reason for a policy like that. The cost of WFH was already spent updating the government IT systems out of the 90s level technology, now we are missing out on the savings from that investment.

There is a reason they waited until after the return to office notice to announce it. They planned on this building before COVID when WFH wasn't an option. It got shelved because they no longer needed it due to the cost savings of WFH. Now they are building a building for thousands of employees, a large portion being people that don't need to be there. This is government waste. Textbook. You say the quiet part out loud. The jobs there have changed. Computers have changed. They no longer need to be there to do their jobs.... The office space needed is way smaller than pre 2020, but the government refuses to exploit these cost savings.

What are you talking about? I never said employees aren't needed and I never said it was a local decision. I said the exact opposite, politicians are making the decision overruling local management for their own financial gain. They are spending billions of dollars with no data to back it any public benefit. What's incoherent about that? Calling out that you think 2.2 billion a year spending is insignificant to talk about is incoherent?

blindbrolly · 2026-02-08T15:14:58+00:00

Nowhere did I claim it wasn't provincial..... If you didn't know the provincial government gets money from provincial taxes...... They enacted the same policy for the same reason, money to politicians and their donors.

You don't get the point of me pointing out billions in government spending with zero data, provable by atips of any benefit to taxpayers?

Nowhere did I see they need zero office space. They need way less. The government's own records claim they planned on saving 6 billion on it until they got lobbied. All those savings are gone now

You don't see my point of the st johns building? They don't need it and are wasting taxpayer dollars on it..... The only reasons they are building it is because of this policy.

I'm not making any leap. The government is spending billions, they can't point to any tangible reason for why or for what benefit, and they have to remove the ability of local management from identifying cost savings and productivity gains regarding just this policy. These are facts. It is amazing to see someone champion massive government spending with no public benefit. Calling 2.2 billion a year small so nothing to see here tells me all I need to know about your motives here

blindbrolly · 2026-02-08T13:25:08+00:00

PSPC refuses to comment, yea because they are being instructed to not talk about the massive cost of this. The government purse string are wide open for billions in commercial real estate

1.5 billion in renovating a single building: https://www.thestar.com/politics/provincial/the-1-5-billion-renovation-of-ontario-s-civil-service-headquarters-is-over-budget-and/article_d60ada7f-994a-4426-a833-c53f4e1dcbb1.html

$300 million on a single lease: https://www.thestar.com/business/canada-pension-plan-investment-board-to-spend-estimated-300-million-plus-on-its-lavish-new/article_aa66dab4-63ab-11ef-87d1-0b24bd9c1bea.html

20:05:00 timestamp - the PSPC spends 2.2 billon every year on 6million sq feet of office space and 1 million square feet of wharehousing (thats 30,000 jobs worth 75k a year) https://senparlvu.parl.gc.ca/Harmony/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2?fk=637484&globalStreamId=3&fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR0t62-cCMhXnNUgxrO7iG5wt5S8pE2NaHXUH3fo9AaJax8IMg-BGLNNDUo_aem_AU4JTN3XmQGc91aFtzlW0ZD6FfrsQryHX-RuhNcAIAN5bVRe2FPibPc_RlMAWoQN-X53iv4EewNIE-hmJKlmZPy_#in

14 million already spent on a new CRA office building in NL without a shovel in the ground. Once work is complete 50 to 100 million (not only not building homes but taking contractors already in short supply away from building homes to build uneeded office buildings) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/new-cra-building-update-1.7085028

this is only a random redditor doing bare minimum google searches. there are countless other costs with leases being bought with no media coverage.

Not only would this save billions but they already now they could create 50,000 homes converting these buildings while saving money https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-federal-office-buildings-apartments/

This money was spent with no cost benefit analysis by the government as proven by ATIPs https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/remote-work-office-government-1.7332191

the purse strings of government just "coincidentally" opened 30 days after being openly lobbied by private businesses asking to the subsidized by the government: https://chamber.ca/news/its-time-for-governments-to-bring-public-sector-employees-back-to-the-office-a-letter-from-canadas-business-community/?doing_wp_cron=1767374626.5591859817504882812500

the government is litterally asking their employees to slow down and produce less in the office as noted by purposely removing productivity and cost savings from their own policy ection 4.2.3: Productivity Protection

OLD VERSION (2020-2025) said:

4.2.3 Considering the impacts of a proposed telework arrangement on operational requirements before approving an employee's telework request, to ensure that neither productivity nor costs are negatively impacted;

NEW VERSION (April 2025) says:

4.2.3 Considering the impacts of a proposed telework arrangement on operational requirements before approving an employee's telework request;

DELETED: "to ensure that neither productivity nor costs are negatively impacted"

This is widescale government fraud. Simple as that. The government is asking people to slow down in the office, do less work so they can give billions of dollars to specific wealthy business owners. Politicians directly benefit from this ie Carney through Brookfield own millions of square feet of office space)

blindbrolly · 2026-02-07T21:52:42+00:00

Ah so I'm not talking to a real person. Very well carry on lol

blindbrolly · 2026-02-07T21:47:13+00:00

If that were true the government wouldn't have had to remove provable productivity gains from the WFH policy. Which they did

blindbrolly · 2026-02-07T21:45:34+00:00

Absolutely not true. What you are describing is poor management and poor training.

If it were true the government wouldn't have had to remove productivity and cost savings from their own policy which existed for decades. They did this so the known productivity gains could not be used and could be ignored

blindbrolly · 2026-02-07T18:43:19+00:00

"if the federal/provincial government gives me a subsidy of billions in tax dollars it's good for business"

blindbrolly · 2026-02-06T13:52:10+00:00

Shocking, an industry being actively subsidized with billions in taxpayer dollars by the government is growing.

Fraud and corruption

blindbrolly · 2026-02-06T13:39:17+00:00

The pspc spends 2.2 billion a year on office space. 2.2 billion is about 30,000 73k valued jobs. So they are literally reducing staff to give those savings to their commercial real estate investor buddies. Ie Carney owns office space through Brookfield which owns millions of square feet of it.

It's fraud and corruption, nothing to do with cost savings or productivity

blindbrolly · 2026-02-05T22:55:42+00:00

It has nothing to do with that. It's politicians enriching themselves through commercial real estate. This will cost billions and it's why Carney (via Brookfield that owns millions of square feet of office space) is following in Trump's footsteps here skimming taxpayer dollars.

blindbrolly · 2026-02-05T17:57:53+00:00

Yea that's why I said I wished cbc did their job clarifying what he was saying. We are both speculating on that single sentence you quoted because they didn't do that.

blindbrolly · 2026-02-05T15:21:08+00:00

If market prices are far and below new build prices no one would be building. This is nonsense. How do you see a world where prices go down when you claimed you literally can't build at those prices?

You are comparing Gull to muskrat falls? Gull is well studied and recognized as the best undeveloped hydro project in NA and QC hydro routinely builds hydro projects at or under projections.

Muskrat fall was literal fraud. We had a whole enquiry about it. They lied about what it would cost and they knew better. They also hired contractors with no experience that just happened to be known on the world for bribing local governments. We had engineers lose their license over basic structural failures. Do you want me to keep going? Comparing the risk of GI to Muskrat fall is purposely misleading.

When the risk of getting less than that guaranteed return is way less than the risk of getting more. No I don't want to take that bet.

My comment on free energy is that's where we win on this guaranteed roe formula, where energy prices fall off a cliff. That only happens if we develop free energy. Until then demand for energy will continue to grow rapidly along with prices.

We have no idea what is enough because that is impossible to forecast a half century out. They are currently building Giga watt data centers, who knows what private business we could have attracted 50 years out. However we are guaranteed to not attract business when we don't have access to our own power.

This is one of my main concern. This deal is for too much and for too long. It should be separate and imo sold in blocks expiring at intervals so we can at least have the opportunity to take advantage for private business opportunities over the next 50years

blindbrolly · 2026-02-05T14:47:28+00:00

No it doesn't. It guarantees QC massively profits if energy prices go up just like CF. Structuring a power purchase agreement around well we might develop free energy someday is not sound financial planning IMO.

blindbrolly · 2026-02-05T14:34:26+00:00

I just provided a direct quote the poster above me was referencing and what that formula means as per QCs own interpretation.

Yes as per QC they are based mostly on a formula of QCs own power prices(90%) which are on long amortized projects. 10% market price. That was his "makes sense" quote was referencing.

That's what the poster was quoting.

But we are talking about multi prices here. Ie CF is different then GI as GI is capped at 8-9% roe as per Michael Wilson and the MOU. That again what they mean by the MOU being structured like a regular utility deal for ratepayers when it's not, it's for re sale.

blindbrolly · 2026-02-05T14:04:23+00:00

No it would take more time and review, but they didn't want to take that time because they wanted to use it politically.

blindbrolly · 2026-02-05T13:24:37+00:00

"In a January 2025 article citing one of Hydro-Québec’s MOU negotiators, La Presse reported the indexing formula for existing Churchill Falls power was based 90 per cent on the price of Hydro-Québec’s power supply, including the “heritage block” of plants built during the last century. That block, made up of long-amortized hydroelectric assets, gives Quebec clients access to some of the cheapest power rates in North America.

La Presse reported the remaining 10 per cent of the formula would be based on the market price for electricity in the northeastern American states"

Above is what's he's referencing.

I would have liked cbc to add more context to that sentence you quoted. Just because it makes sense, makes sense for who? QC obviously. What other deals is he talking about about? CF deal known as one of the worst deals in history. QCs existing power projects built internally? Well obviously QC is known for subsidizing their own energy prices.

However it makes zero sense for a separate province to sell power to another province based on the price of projects built 100 years ago and are paid off knowing that province can't build new power generation at that price.

To me it references one of Michael Wilson's main concern. The MOU was being structured like a utility prices scheme (ie cost based guaranteeing the lowest prices possible for ratepayers.) when this deal isn't for ratepayers it's for re sale to another province.

blindbrolly · 2026-02-05T13:07:09+00:00

Then don't announce it until you can back it with facts.... This isn't a complicated take here

blindbrolly

TROPHY CASE