Ed Broadbent, before his passing, agreed to join Liberals and Conservatives in an effort to save the structure and he was ready to co-sign a letter with Chrétien. So I approached Chrétien, who had an even better idea. He suggested that he would reach out to Harper so the pair could head up a fundraising effort which would be devoted to restoring the residence.
By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on March 18, 2024.
OTTAWA—As the country mourns the passing of two great former political leaders, much has been written about the time when politicians from all parties were able to work together.
A recent effort to rebuild the prime minister’s residence involved just such a collaborative effort.
But last week the Prime Minister’s Office said no to a proposition where former prime ministers Jean Chrétien and Stephen Harper would work together on a fundraising campaign to rebuild 24 Sussex Dr. as the prime minister’s residence.
For the past several months, a group of Canadians has been trying to secure a future for the residence, which had become rat-infested after years of neglect.
I was approached to help with the project and reached out to former political leaders in an effort to build some political support.
Former NDP leader Ed Broadbent, before his passing, agreed to join Liberals and Conservatives in an effort to save the structure. He was ready to co-sign a letter with Chrétien so I approached Chrétien, who had an even better idea.
He suggested that he would reach out to Harper so the pair could head up a fundraising effort which would be devoted to restoring the residence.
Harper agreed with the plan, and both planned to raise money for a restoration of the house with no additional wings added to the residence. They also proposed a scaled-down version of the security package which allegedly was responsible for ballooning restoration costs.
At the last count, the National Capital Commission set the cost of rebuilding at $37-million.
Chrétien met privately with officials in the Prime Minister’s Office in February to pitch the plan, and went away thinking it was a winner.
But last week the answer came back negative. The Prime Minister’s Office communicated that it was not interested in engaging the volunteer services of two former prime ministers in a fundraising effort for 24 Sussex Drive.
It is hard to understand how a such an offer would be rejected, particularly in view of the public climate on current government spending.
According to a recent Nanos poll for Bloomberg, 63 per cent of Canadians think the government should cut back on spending.
Respondents are not unanimous on what should be done with the savings. According to Nanos, 38 per cent of those who want less spending would like the savings to go to debt reduction, while 25 per cent would like tax cuts.
The prime minister probably thinks the renovation is one more political hot potato that he simply cannot handle at the moment.
But by turning down the co-operative support of three political leaders, he risks an even bigger problem.
As the cost of housing rises across the country, Canadian are naturally skeptical about spending public money on a prime ministerial mansion.
Private donations would certainly be a solution. But there would undoubtedly be criticism about who is donating and what do they expect to get from it.
When Trudeau’s father built an indoor swimming pool at the residence, via private donors, he spent months dodging questions on who donated and why.
Chrétien and Harper were prepared to handle the backlash, as was Broadbent.
With a trio of leaders of that stature, it is pretty hard to understand why the government would refuse an offer to fix a political problem that has been percolating for years.
The last time a similar offer was refused was when a group of political and business leaders were trying to mend fences with China after Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou was arrested at the Vancouver airport because of an American extradition order.
In that instance, Mulroney was among those suggesting that Chrétien could head up a high-level visit to China to try and solve the diplomatic spat could be solved by face-to-face, diplomacy.
That suggestion was publicly labelled as “dangerous” by then foreign minister Chrystia Freeland, who stated a move to drop extradition proceedings in return for the prison release of two Canadians would set a precedent leaving all Canadians in danger.
The imprisoned Canadians spent two more years in jail before China bypassed Canada to negotiate a deal with the Americans for her release.
Just last week, it was reported that the Canadian government paid $7-million to compensate Michael Spavor for its role in the detentions.
The latest offer by former leaders pales in comparison to the international implications of the Two Michaels’ arrests.
But saving 24 Sussex is also in the public interest.
Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.
