September 20, 2005

“Growing support for the idea of relocating federal departments to Canada’s regions should be matched by increased action. I believe there is a strong case for relocation - and I am pleased that the concept appears to be gathering momentum,” stated Downe.

Earlier this year, Senator Downe wrote to the Prime Minister asking that further consideration be given to the idea of relocating federal departments to Canada’s regions. The Senator also introduced the matter as a subject of debate in the Senate.

Senator Downe’s initiative to relocate government departments to the regions of Canada received strong support in the Senate. A number of Senators spoke in the Chamber agreeing with Downe’s argument and calling for government action on the issue.

Since that time, the federal government has announced that the Canadian Tourism Commission will be moved to British Columbia. Additionally, the 2005 budget included plans to relocate some support services to the regions.

In his most recent letter to the Prime Minister on June 29, 2005, Senator Downe said:

I believe it is important to examine the idea of relocating full departments to the regions - not just components. I am concerned that the Service Canada announcement on decentralization in the 2005 federal budget resolves solely around support services. We have to be very careful that the positions being relocated are not the lowest paid jobs but also include senior bureaucrats who would bring significant and beneficial impact to the receiving community. When you move a department from Ottawa, the recipient community receives everyone from the Deputy Minister to the lowest paid job. In other words you have a range of positions, responsibilities and salary levels. In my research on government departments I discovered that over 70 percent of the most senior positions (Ex1 to Ex 5) are located in Ottawa. The regions of Canada should insist on a relocation of a full department of government as opposed to glorified call centres.

I would like to congratulate the government on your decision to move the Canadian Tourism Commission to Vancouver – and I would urge you to build on this, and look at further substantive moves elsewhere.

A copy of the June 29, 2005 letter to Prime Minister Martin follows:

Prime Minister Paul Martin
Room 300-S, Centre Block
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6

June 29, 2005

Dear Prime Minister:

I am writing to reiterate my concern that more can be done to relocate services provided by the Government of Canada in ways that would offer significant benefits to the regions of Canada.

After I wrote to you in January, I initiated a debate on the merits of decentralization in the Senate and I have also had the opportunity to discuss the concept with Members of Parliament. To this point, there has been a remarkable level of support. For example, I believe Senator Grant Mitchell made the case for decentralization as a nation-building concept when he said the following during debate in the Senate on 9 June 2005:

“One important component of a relevant and effective public service is the presence and visibility of government to individual Canadians. All too often, for those Canadians outside the National Capital Region, decision-making and governance is something that happens at a distance, in some other place far away, in Ottawa. The physical distance can breed a sense of removal and alienation from the process that could undermine the sense of legitimacy of federal institutions and detract from national unity.”

From another perspective, my home province of Prince Edward Island has benefited from the relocation of the Department of Veterans Affairs through an increase in the use of both official languages. As a matter of fact, Statistics Canada has pointed out that after Quebec and New Brunswick, Islanders are third in their knowledge of both languages.

As Senator Terry Mercer said during debate on 2 February 2005:

“Senator Downe’s comment about language issues is important. Wherever government agencies have relocated outside the National Capital Region, the effect has been positive, Charlottetown being a prime example, as well as Summerside, and Vegreville and the Tax Centre in Shawinigan.”

Of course, there are also economic benefits associated with the concept of relocation. As I have stated in the past, the decision to move the Department of Veterans Affairs to Charlottetown had a profound and lasting impact on my home community. Those benefits include 1,200 full-time jobs; an annual payroll of $68-million; student jobs during the summer and a potential career path for future generations who want a rewarding life in the public service - in their home region.

I believe that Senator Fernand Robichaud argued effectively during debate on 17 February 2005:

“I need hardly tell you that the regions which depend on seasonal employment see the coming of federal government jobs rather like manna from heaven. Federal jobs are rightly considered to be permanent, stable and well-paid, compared to the jobs normally available in these regions. As you know, Canada’s regions are overflowing with qualified, available people who can be trained to meet job requirements.

“It is obvious that there are important advantages to the Government of Canada in decentralizing government services to various regions of the country. One of the immediate benefits is to bring the administration of federal programs closer to the clients they serve.”

In addition to offering more client-centred services, the decentralization of certain government departments would also have an enormous spin-off effect on local economies. During debate

on 3 May 2005, Senator Pierrette Ringuette said the following:

“In addition to luring private investment, the economic impact of relocating 1,000 federal jobs - or 0.3 per cent of federal public jobs - with an average of a $55-million payroll for those 1,000 jobs per year ... would increase the value of our human resources and enrolment in school and local post-secondary programs; increase local job opportunities - thus retaining our youth; increase real estate value and retail store revenues, hotel and restaurant revenues and tourism potential; increase air and train traffic with its critical mass and therefore assure the viability of these services for our population and business community.”

These comments are just a sample of some of the broad-based support for the concept of increased relocation.

I want to underline this particular aspect of the argument: I believe it is important to examine the idea of relocating full departments to the regions - not just components. I am concerned that the Service Canada announcement on decentralization in the 2005 federal budget resolves solely around support services. We have to be very careful that the positions being relocated are not the lowest paid jobs but also include senior bureaucrats who would bring significant and beneficial impact to the receiving community. When you move a department from Ottawa, the recipient community receives everyone from the Deputy Minister to the lowest paid job. In other words you have a range of positions, responsibilities and salary levels. In my research on government departments I discovered that over 70 percent of the most senior positions (Ex1 to Ex 5) are located in Ottawa. The regions of Canada should insist on a relocation of a full department of government as opposed to glorified call centres.

That said, I would like to congratulate the government on your decision to move the Canadian Tourism Commission to Vancouver - and I would urge you to build on this, and look at further substantive moves elsewhere.

Sincerely,

Percy Downe
Senator

c.c.: The Hon. Fernand Robichaud, P.C.
The Hon. Pierrette Ringuette
The Hon. Terry Mercer
The Hon. Grant Mitchell