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.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on September 4, 2023.

OTTAWA—The trial balloon, floated last week about the demolition of 24 Sussex Drive, should be pricked.

Can you imagine a G7 country that does not have housing for its head of government? As former prime minister Jean Chrétien told the CBC earlier this year, the condition of 24 Sussex is an “embarrassment to the nation.”

Full disclosure: I am working with a not-for-profit heritage corporation that wants to save the prime minister’s residence by rebuilding it at a price tag substantially less than the $36.6-million quoted renovation cost.

The Heritage Ottawa Development Inc. (HODI) group is comprised of experts in conservation and restoration. Board members have all been involved in multiple projects to restore and retain built heritage in the nation’s capital. HODI’s board includes leaders in restoration adaptation like Sandy Smallwood, who saved Wallis House and many other heritage buildings from the wrecker’s ball.

HODI president Marc Denhez is challenging the price attached to the 24 Sussex restoration, comparing it to the grossly inflated cost attached to restoring the Aberdeen Pavilion in Lansdowne Park when developers were trying to justify demolition.

Affectionately known as the “Cow Palace,” Aberdeen was built in 1898 for the Central Canada Exhibition Association. Published cost estimates to restore the structure ballooned up to $82-million, prompting city council to approve demolition in 1991.

Community reaction to the destruction decision was swift. Heritage Ottawa led a massive community outcry, ultimately forcing a reversal of the demolition vote by a new council the following year. In the end, the city approved a restoration budget of $5.3-million, a far cry from the $82-million figure bandied about by those who supported demolition.

The same numerical bait and switch tactic appears to be happening in relation to the prime minister’s residence. The National Capital Commission, which has the lead in the project, said in a report last year that the price tag for restoration was almost $40-million.

That number has repeatedly been tossed around, but the NCC still refuses to release the financial documents backing up the inflated price.

Anonymous sources leak stories of the desperate condition of the building. It has mould and rats. Surprise, surprise, any building that has been unoccupied for almost a decade is going to be taken over by the rodent family.

The NCC’s refusal to release documents to verify the funding claim has been referred to the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada, which has opened a file on the issue.

In the trial balloon floated in the media last week, security was the number one reason that anonymous sources claimed the official residence had to be moved. However, that claim also deserves further scrutiny. There is no security cost attached to an anonymous proposal to build a new residence on Rockcliffe parkland.

The NCC must also understand the environmental and legal implications of tearing down a classified federal heritage building. That classification means that any changes, including demolition, must be approved by the Federal Heritage Buildings Review Office (FHBRO), an office in Parks Canada designed to assist other federal departments in protecting heritage buildings. FHBRO must apply the Treasury Board policy on management of real property.

The demolition of a classified national building also runs counter to the sustainable development goals set out by the United Nations.

“Embodied carbon” was a hot topic at the 26th United Nations Climate Change conference in Glasgow in 2021, led by members of the Climate Heritage Network. Embodied carbon is the amount of greenhouse gases emitted in demolition compared to restoration. The network’s view is that “the greenest building is one that is already built”. Chris Wiebe, of the National Trust for Canada, is the North American vice-chair of the global network.

Following last week’s news on moving the official residence, community groups are already researching the additional greenhouse gas emissions involved in a plan to tear 24 Sussex down, along with the carbon sink loss of parkland involved in building a new residence, with a bigger footprint for entertaining and parking.

Naturally politicians are loathe to weigh in on a residence that houses politicians. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre missed an opportunity when he took himself out of the debate by saying the residence where the prime minister lives would be his last priority.

No one expects it to be his first, but respect for built heritage and the history behind 24 Sussex is something that should concern all Canadians, especially someone who wants to live there someday.

Demolition of our history is not sustainable.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.