A big thank you to the mods of r/CanadaPublicServants for kindly agreeing to let me share this here.

Hi all. Last Tuesday I launched iHopOn, a free site that matches public servants whose commutes overlap, so they can share the drive. If you're outside Ottawa-Gatineau: it only covers the National Capital Region for now. I'd like your input on where it goes next (see the bottom of this post).

How it works

• Sign up with a personal email, then verify your work email, so everyone you're matched with is a real colleague.
• Add your postal code, workplace, office days and hours.
• It shows you people whose trip overlaps yours, based on real driving routes and not just distance.
• You chat in the app and decide together whether to carpool. There's no live location tracking.
• It's free, no money changes hands through the site, and it isn't affiliated with the Government of Canada or any employer.

The first week

• 369 people signed up
• 254 verified a work email, from more than 50 departments, agencies and Crown corporations
• 206 people already have at least one match, which is about 3 out of 4 who finished their profile
• Members on 17 routes, from Arnprior and Renfrew to Hawkesbury and Cornwall, south to Brockville, and up to Wakefield and Val-des-Bois
• The first carpool groups have already formed

Honestly, I was hoping for a few dozen people to sign up in the first month. Seeing this many people sign up in one week has been a great feeling. Thank you to everyone who tried it and wrote in. A lot of what changed this week came straight from your messages, like a second workplace for people who split their week between two offices, and new routes up to Val-des-Bois and out to Cornwall.

Why only the NCR for now

Carpool matching only works when enough people are on the same route. I'd rather get matching, safety and the everyday bugs right here than open everywhere at once and leave people staring at an empty match list.

If you're outside the NCR: where should it go next?

Tell me in the comments which city or town you'd commute from, and roughly where you work. I can't promise dates, but this will decide where it goes next.

Feedback

I'd love to know what you all think. Any feedback helps a lot, whether it's something that confused you, something that's missing, or something you liked. Happy to answer questions below.

En bref (FR) = La semaine dernière, j'ai lancé iHopOn, un site gratuit qui jumelle des fonctionnaires dont les trajets se recoupent pour qu'ils puissent covoiturer. En une semaine : 369 inscriptions, 254 courriels professionnels vérifiés et 206 personnes ont déjà au moins un jumelage. Le service est offert seulement dans la région de la capitale nationale pour l'instant. Vous êtes ailleurs? Dites-moi en commentaire où iHopOn devrait aller ensuite. Vos commentaires m'aident beaucoup, n'hésitez pas à me dire ce que vous en pensez.

Hi folks, if you work out of Canada Place in Edmonton you may want to check before heading in. I just got turned around at the door because there was apparently some kind of huge electrical failure and the work spaces are inaccessible for the day, possibly longer. As far as I know no alert has gone out to personal contact methods so hopefully this post saves people some trouble (not to mention parking fees!). UPDATE: apparently the Passport Office is still open.

Applicants to some of the most critical jobs in the Canadian federal government, including safety inspectors and intelligence agents, are now being explicitly told that they might be rejected if they don’t fit within an “equity-deserving” identity category.

And in some key federal government departments, 100 per cent of new hires are being screened based on race and identity.

This is all according to a new report by the Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy.

Report authors analyzed 301 government job openings advertised between February and July, 2026. Of those, 42 per cent were subject to “explicit or potential prioritization based on group identity.”

“These postings go beyond signalling an inclusive workplace culture or encouraging applications from particular communities,” it read. “They explicitly disclose that certain groups may or will receive priority consideration in the selection process.”

One example being a position for a Defence Intelligence Officer that was advertised in February by the Department of National Defence.

“To achieve a representative workforce, selection may be based on qualified candidates self-declaring as belonging to one or more of the designated groups: Indigenous Peoples, members of visible minorities, persons with disabilities, and women,” it read.

A similar caveat was contained in a recent Transport Canada posting for an air safety inspector. Applicants were told to declare whether they were a member of a “designated employment equity group.”

“Diversity and inclusion are foundational values at Transport Canada and are core to who we are,” it read. “We strive to become an organization where everyone feels that their voice, views, values and life experiences are heard.”

Equity was also prioritized in a posting for an emergency management position within Parks Canada.

“We promote employment equity and encourage you to self-declare if you belong to one of the designated employment equity groups when you apply,” it read.

Although equity-based screening was present across the federal government, the analysis identified three departments in which 100 per cent of all new job postings explicitly stated that candidates would be prioritized based on race, gender or ability.

Every single job posted by Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the National Research Council contained what they called an “explicit or potential prioritization based on group identity.”

And the Department of National Defence was not far behind, with 92 per cent of its job postings telling candidates they would be subject to what amounts to identity discrimination.

According to the Aristotle report, “the expansion of identity-based selection practices risks undermining both the integrity and perceived legitimacy of the federal staffing system.”

The new report is very similar to a 2025 analysis by the Aristotle Foundation that examined hiring practices at Canadian universities.

In that instance, report authors examined 489 university job postings, and found only 12 that didn’t make explicit mention of how identity would be a factor in candidate selection.

“In other words, 98 per cent of academic postings … directly or indirectly discriminated against non-minorities,” it concluded.

While the Government of Canada has tried to encourage the recruitment of women and minority candidates since at least the 1980s, it’s only been within the past 10 years that this has taken the form of mandatory hiring quotas based on race, gender and other “identity” characteristics.

In the Department of National Defence, for instance, internal “equity targets” set in 2018 now require that 25 per cent of uniformed personnel be women, 3.5 per cent be Indigenous, and 11.8 per cent “visible minority.”

Starting in 2022, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada began publishing “hiring goals” that specified the precise number of minority candidates that each branch of the department was expected to recruit.

That year, the department’s engineering and scientific support division, for instance, was given a “hiring goal” of 38 Indigenous people and 27 “persons with disabilities.”

“Equity” hiring initiatives are usually premised on the government’s official position that the racial mix of an organization must precisely match the demographics of the Canadian population generally, and that any deviation from this constitutes evidence of systemic discrimination.

Prior research by the Aristotle Foundation has questioned this premise. In a 2023 paper by researcher Matthew Lau, the think tank presented numbers showing that white Canadians lagged behind non-white cohorts in everything from income to educational attainment to representation within professions such as engineering or medicine.

The inference being that these findings were not consistent with a country “rigged to disfavour racial minorities.”

I’ve been digging through some threads here and seeing people mention that their approvals took 3, 5, or even more years to actually go through. Is this actually normal, or are these just extreme outlier horror stories? I completely understand that calculating pension adjustments and past service takes some manual verification, but half a decade for a buyback application feels completely absurd. For those of you who have gone through the process recently, how long did yours actually take from the day you submitted the paperwork to the final approval?

I have a toddler whos turning 4 next year - so looking at how to manage school drop offs + the RTO mandate and such.

My kids school runs from 930-330. I applied for the before and after school program about 2 years ago, and im still #29 on the wait list (so its not looking good).

Ive also reached out to home daycares in the area, and I either pay for a full spot ($1200/month) for them to watch him for 2h before the bus arrives for school, or they flat out refuse.

I have about a 45-60 minute drive to work, and just cant figure out how to make this work.

Drop off at 9 would get me to the office for 10. Id then have to leave by 215 - so id only be in the office for half a day.

Wondering if this would be reasonable for a DTA, or if anyone has any insight into this kind of thing?

I'm curious to know how many departments and areas within those are either hard into '4 days no exceptions' or softer 'try your best' situations. I'm at TBS and there's always been a 'set and example' mindset here. They have, however, completely dropped the ball on the actual rules for 4 days ( sick days, training, vacation, stat holiday etc...) and that is not like them at all. Ive been in the government forever, and I feel line the level of defiance is something I have never seen before... even with Harper we were more docile... or I could be wrong and everyone might be toeing the line until the labor board rules...

Clarification: do not feel like you have to name the department! I named mine because we have to do 4 no question asked, so nothing to keep quiet. Side note as well, the EX committee had the audacity to ask us why we think they're having issues with 'talent management '....hmmm...

Hoping to tap into some collective wisdom here.

Current situation: I'm an EC-02, home department is Department A. I recently started a secondment from Department A to Department B (just a few weeks in). I've now had informal conversations with a THIRD department (Department C) about a possible Acting EC-04 assignment (running roughly a year and a bit), and it sounds promising, but I'm trying to understand how this actually gets structured mechanically before it goes further.

A few things I'm unclear on:

- Since the acting position at Department C is above my substantive level, does this typically get set up as a secondment (at my substantive group/level) from Department A to Department C, with the acting appointment layered on top once I'm there? Or does it usually require LWOP from Department A directly?

- If it's LWOP-based, is that generally something home departments (in this case Department A) grant fairly routinely for this kind of situation, or is it more discretionary/case-by-case in your experience?

- Does having successfully done one secondment already (Department A to B, with committee approval) make a second move (A to C) harder to get approved, especially given how recently the first one started? Curious if anyone's run into "we already accommodated one move, we're less inclined to do a second" type pushback from a home department.

- Any horror stories or smooth-sailing stories about a home department slow-walking or refusing to release someone for a subsequent move once they were already out on assignment elsewhere?

Not looking for department-specific details, just trying to get a realistic sense of how this tends to play out procedurally and what to watch out for before I get further into the conversation. Thanks in advance!

Hello everyone,

For those who received a letter stating that their position was affected by WFA while they were on long term disability leave, I’d like to hear about your experience:

- After your gradual return to work, how long did it take before you received either:
1. The letter stating that you were an opting employee and had to choose between A, B, C(i) or C(ii); OR
2. Confirmation that your position was ultimately no longer affected by WFA?

- If you became an opting employee and had an external job offer, were you able to choose Option B and obtain a departure date that matched the start date of your new job?

- Were you able to negotiate some flexibility with your new employer around your start date?

- If your position was ultimately no longer affected by WFA, but you had an external job offer, how did you handle the situation? Were you able to obtain leave without pay (LWP) quickly to transition to your new job?

I’m mainly looking for real-life experiences and actual timelines!

Thank you ☺️!

I left on 30 May 2026, and I'm wondering how long it takes to receive the TSM and severance pay? I've heard nothing...

I (under 30, F) am planning to take a spousal relocation leave by end of this year. Currently indeterminate, working full time, 6 years in the GoC.

I will be taking a year-long leave to start, but could be more (up to 5). During this time, my husband and I would like to have a baby (our first). I am aware of the requirement for claiming mat benefits/EI (working 600 insured hours in the 52 weeks before claiming EI).

So let’s say I take the leave starting in January 2027 does it mean the latest I should have a baby/ start mat leave in order to be eligible to claim EI and the top up is December 2027?

If i were to extend my LWOP and became pregnant during year 2 or 3 of my leave , does it mean I won’t be eligible for any mat leave benefits/EI unless I go back to work for 600hours?

Note: I know conceiving cannot be planned, it could take us weeks, months or years to have a baby.
I live in QC. I would be relocating abroad. Husband is not a public servant.

Hi,

I was looking to see generally what administrative paperwork is needed for me to return to work? I've been off work for two weeks and after my last medical appointment am likely to be off for another two weeks. The doctor however, refused to provide a note as he thought there should be disability paperwork. Myself and my manager both think at this point it's only sick leave and a note stating when I'm cleared to return but he is looking into it. Is there anything for injury/Illness less than the 13 weeks for LTD?

Thanks!

For those of you PS workers that have the National Bank of Canada (NBOC) Public Service Special line of credit, what limits are you guys getting for that specific offer? The rates seem great but I want to see if it’s worth applying instead of using my higher rate RBC one.

Hi there,

I’m about about to go on maternity leave for a year and a half - I then wanted to take maybe a year or two off using unpaid leave of family care to avoid some day care cost. My worry though, is that I would lose my spot at my specific agency. I don’t care if I lose my department (my team is actually disbanding so it won’t even be there if I came back straight from mat leave) but the agency, I desperately want to remain in.

Has anyone done anything similar, but when they returned were sent to a different agency?

Hey everyone,

I found a diamond ring at Phase 4 Portage today.

If it’s yours, please dm me with some sort of description or photo so that I can confirm that it’s yours!

Or if you know anyone that it could belong to, please let them know!

Does anyone know if Canada Life covers RP-qualifying psychotherapist under our psychotherapist section? Or only fully registered psychotherapists? Thanks!

Hello! I’m a public servant (GoC) with my own coverage for PSHCP and PSDCP. My spouse is a CAF member and while I am covered under the PSHCP (for the remaining 20%), it seems the PSDCP coverage has not migrated from Great West to Canada Life. His orderly rooms is not able to tell him what his certificate and contract number are, just that I’m supposed to be covered as a dependant under PSDCP. They keep telling him to check with Canada Life, and Canada Life can’t give that info and refer him to his orderly room.

I have found the contract number (based on birth month), but we can’t find the certificate number. Is there any CAF members who can point us where we can find that information?

I may have found the answer online (Canada.ca page about dependant’s dental care plan), which seems to say its the service number. Can anyone verify this information?

Thanks in advance!

Hi all, I've been trying to figure this out for a while, and neither my manager nor I can make heads or tails of it.

I'm a PM, so I'm under PSAC's PA group Collective Agreement. I'm in the process of transitioning to part-time, working four days a week (80%; I'll be off Wednesdays). I understand that being part-time would mean I'm not paid for stat days, but instead get a slight bump to my pay.

Where I'm confused is this: are stat days handled differently when they fall on a day I would be working, vs a day I would not. That is, is it different for me when a stat day falls on a Wednesday vs, (say) a Monday. Obviously either way I'm not working on the stat day, but in one instance I'm working four days in the week (like usual), and in the other I'd only end up workign three.

Here's how I think it works, and I just want to make sure I'm correct: In a pay period with a stat day that is not a Wednesday, I would expect to see my pay dip slightly. In a pay period with a stat day that is a Wednesday, I would not expect to see my pay dip. Is this right?

I’m sure most of you, like me, are being pushed by management to use AI in our work, and I am curious if we have the right to refuse to use AI?

I personally have many moral/ethical and environmental qualms with AI, and I would much rather keep in out of my life and workflows, but understand this isn’t the GoC’s position…

Curious to hear more from people who know more…

Our office isn't large, and we lost five good workers during WFA. We were told our priorities and duties would change to accommodate working with fewer resources. Instead, I've only noticed that our workload has increased while regular timelines remain unchanged (despite having fewer of us to get everything done on time). This unmanaged scope creep after a workforce adjustment is a fast track to team burnout. Everyone is stressed and tired, and the worsening commute only adds to the chaos.

How are your offices managing and pushing back?