The week of February 9, AFS Group President Doug Mason sent the following letter to CRA Commissioner Bob Hamilton about the plan to increase on-site presence at the Agency.
Commissioner Hamilton,
I am writing on behalf of the 16,000 members of the Audit, Financial and Scientific (AFS) Group to express our profound disappointment and anger regarding your decision to follow Treasury Board’s directive to increase mandatory on-site presence. This decision was made without any consultation and lacks supporting evidence.
AFS members are angry as they care deeply about the Agency, its mandate, and its integrity.
This decision was not made in the best interests of the Agency.
Failure to Consult with the Union
At no point prior to your decision were the AFS Group, PIPSC, or employees consulted. This decision was presented as a fait accompli, framed as an administrative necessity rather than the important choice that it represents. Our union has been clear that we support presence with purpose, but there is nothing in this decision to suggest that the new standards will be any different than the current, thoughtless, in-office process.
The lack of consultation shows a lack of respect for the union, its elected officials, and its members. This was not an operational emergency. It was a policy choice, and it was made unilaterally. Management knows the impact that such decisions have on our members and have disregarded them completely. For an organization that says it has a Union Management approach, these actions show otherwise.
Telework has already proven its value to the CRA
As outlined in our letter to the Secretary of State dated November 14, 2025, CRA employees have demonstrated exceptional productivity while working remotely:
- CRA exceeded the vast majority of its service and compliance targets during full-time remote work;
- Revenue generation increased year over year;
- Sick leave usage declined;
- Retention and recruitment outcomes improved.
Telework has saved the CRA hundreds of millions of dollars annually in accommodation costs, reduced emissions, and allowed the Agency to maintain capacity without triggering layoffs or service degradation. This is not an evidence-based decision, nor is it one that is best for Canadians, AFS members or the Agency. It has been clearly shown that remote work is a viable option, yet you have ignored this evidence.
CRA is not legally required to mirror Treasury Board direction
The Canada Revenue Agency is a separate employer established specifically to operate at arm’s length from Treasury Board in order to fulfill its revenue collection mandate effectively.
Treasury Board direction is not binding on the CRA. As commissioner, you are empowered —and obligated — to determine what operational model best enables the Agency to:
- recover tax dollars,
- combat tax avoidance and evasion, and
- deliver high-quality service to Canadians.
The Agency has been following this mandate while members are performing remote work, and there is no indication on how this change will better meet such mandate. Blind alignment with Treasury Board does not serve the best interests of the Agency, its employees, or the public. If anything the increase in costs, and environmental damage are a detriment to all.
Your message contained no analysis, no justification, and no indication that CRA-specific data informed the decision. For four years, employees have repeatedly demonstrated that flexible and remote work strengthens—not weakens—the Agency. Ignoring that reality undermines confidence in senior leadership.
The decision impacts matters that should be dealt with in bargaining
We are particularly concerned that this directive was issued while another union is actively negotiating with the Agency. It is no surprise that remote work is a live topic at the bargaining table.
The approach taken by management makes us question its commitment to legal and collaborative labour relations. We are concerned that the employer’s actions will prejudice our upcoming bargaining.
This decision has real human and operational consequences
This is not an abstract policy shift. It affects:
- employee physical and mental health,
- Caregivers,
- employees with disabilities,
- regional employees far from major offices,
- CRA’s ability to retain specialized expertise,
- incurring huge unnecessary real estate expenses,
- and reduced productivity from increased office presence.
Your message acknowledged stress and uncertainty—but offered only EAP resources, not solutions. That response minimizes the seriousness of the impact on employees and on the Agency’s long-term capacity.
Management has the right to manage, but this discretion must be reasonably exercised.
Making such important decisions without analysis, and in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, is not exercising management discretion reasonably.
The AFS Group, on behalf of its 16,000 members asks the CRA to:
- Pause implementation of increased on-site requirements;
- Engage in immediate meaningful consultation with bargaining agents;
- Provide evidence-based justification for any workplace-presence model;
- Exercise the CRA’s independence, rather than defaulting to Treasury Board direction.
After 41 years of public service, including the last 9 as our CRA Commissioner, do you want this unsupported impulsive decision to be your legacy?
We urge you to take the time to consider our deep concerns about the announced increase in mandatory office presence.
Sincerely,
Doug Mason
AFS President, on behalf of the AFS Executive and its 16,000 AFS members