This month, the federal government issued statements celebrating both Pride Month and National Indigenous History Month. At the same time, it is rolling out an updated return-to-office mandate that, according to its own analysis, disproportionately harms equity-deserving groups. The contradiction is hard to ignore.

The federal government presents itself as a leader on diversity, equity, and inclusion. Departments conduct Gender-Based Analysis Plus assessments to understand how policies affect different groups of people and to reduce unintended harms. In theory, that process is meant to ensure public policy is evidence-based, equitable, and informed by lived realities.

But what happens when the government ignores its own findings?

The government’s own analysis of hybrid work warned that blanket return-to-office policies could disproportionately impact women, Indigenous workers, racialized employees, disabled workers, people with chronic illnesses, caregivers, and 2SLGBTQIA+ employees. It found that many workers from equity-deserving groups risk experiencing higher rates of harassment, discrimination, burnout, and microaggressions in physical workplaces.

The concerns are not abstract.

In contrast, remote work gave many employees greater control over their environments and reduced daily exposure to stigma and bias. For disabled employees and workers with chronic health conditions, it reduced the exhausting burden of constantly navigating inaccessible workplaces and accommodation barriers. For 2SLGBTQIA+ employees, it reduced the stress of navigating workplaces where even routine things like using a washroom can become sources of scrutiny, misgendering, or harassment. For many women – who still disproportionately shoulder caregiving responsibilities – remote work created flexibility that made balancing work and family more manageable.

Yet despite these findings, the federal government is moving ahead with a blanket return-to-office mandate requiring most public servants to work in-office four days a week starting July 6. For many workers, that does not simply mean a longer commute or less flexibility. It means being pushed back into workplace conditions that the government’s own analysis identified as potentially harmful.

At the same time, federal buildings still face issues involving lack of space, overcrowding, infestations, air quality, and basic functionality. In some cases, employees commute hours simply to spend the day on virtual meetings, while taxpayers foot the bill for additional office space.

It is increasingly difficult to frame RTO as a thoughtful or efficient workforce strategy.

The government’s analysis also warned that return-to-office requirements could undermine recruitment and retention efforts, particularly for workers in northern, remote, and Indigenous communities. That matters because representation in the public service is not accidental; it took decades of work to improve. Progress on equity is hard-won and incredibly easy to lose.

And that is the broader risk here.

The federal public service became more accessible to many people during the expansion of remote work. Workers who were previously excluded by geography, disability, caregiving obligations, or workplace culture suddenly had greater access to stable, meaningful public sector employment. Remote work did not solve inequity, but for many people, it reduced barriers that had existed for years – without reducing productivity or the quality of public services.

Now, many of those barriers are quietly being rebuilt.

The issue is not whether offices should exist or whether in-person work has value. Of course it does. Public servants have consistently called for presence with purpose: meaningful in-person work driven by operational need, not arbitrary attendance requirements. The issue is why the government is choosing such a rigid, one-size-fits-all approach when its own evidence suggests the costs completely outweigh the benefits.

There is little point in conducting equity analyses if governments don’t act on what they find. These reports are meant to shape decisions –  not simply exist alongside them.

A government that cares about equity cannot treat inclusion as something celebrated in speeches while sidelining it in operational decisions.

Because equity is not measured by what appears in a June press release. It is measured by who gets pushed out when policies change.

Katie Francis is vice-president of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada.