This is not simply a test of construction and security issues. It is a test of whether the Canadian government actually respects history.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on March 23, 2026.

OTTAWA—U.S. President Donald Trump can tear down the White House Rose Garden to build a banquet hall with barely a peep from the American people.

Three prime ministers have not been able to move into Canada’s prime ministerial residence, and nobody can make a decision on how to fix it.

What is wrong with this picture? Presidential authority can go too far. We are currently on the brink of a global war started by the president without any support from the U.S. Congress or the majority of allies.

But a decision on the fate of 24 Sussex Dr. has been lagging for more than 15 years and the political class will not tackle it.

Prime Minister Mark Carney is not a traditional politician. Maybe he will have the guts to save the place that has been home to multiple prime ministers for more than 75 years. In making his decision, hopefully he will establish a process to ensure that no prime minister is ever faced with this Hobson’s choice again.

If Carney agrees to spend the money, he will be seen as self-serving, and simply building a home for himself. If he doesn’t spend money, Canada will be the only country in the G7 that refuses to properly house its leader.

Full disclosure: I was hired by Historic Ottawa Development Inc. to press for the preservation of the prime minister’s residence at 24 Sussex, and I lobbied the previous government on this issue. My contract with HODI ended almost a year ago.

I have no insider information, but I am hoping that Carney will finally bite the bullet and save 24 Sussex.

Previous prime ministers, including Jean Chrétien and Stephen Harper, have already offered to raise money for the project.

To involve private donations would not be unprecedented. When former Conservative minister Ray Hnatyshyn became governor general, his wife Gerda was appalled at the state of the residence. Peeling wallpaper and shoddy furniture were what greeted visitors to the home of Canada’s head of state. Determined to change that, she was involved with the establishment of the Friends of Rideau Hall, whose mandate was to augment public funding for restoration work to the building and gardens of the magnificent home of the governor general.

After her husband left office, Gerda continued her philanthropic endeavours, working with the Canadian Heritage Garden Foundation to develop a heritage garden on the grounds.

Pierre Trudeau, who was a great believer in personal fitness, had a swimming pool installed on the grounds of 24 Sussex, funded by private donors. Designed by Stig Harvor, the indoor pool cost $275,000 and was paid for by donations from those who were promised anonymity. Trudeau initially wanted public funding for the site, but was convinced by advisers that would be too controversial. In the end, the anonymous donations were just as controversial, and the fundraising effort headed by Senator Keith Davey became a political albatross.

That controversy likely explains why his son, prime minister Justin Trudeau, was unwilling to make a decision on the site during his 10 years in office. His personal time at 24 Sussex must have been bittersweet, as his parents’ marriage failed during his youth at the residence.

But Carney does not have any of that personal baggage to deal with. At his one-year anniversary last week, the most notable observation was that he is a non-political politician. Perhaps his private sector experience will make a business case for the restoration of 24 Sussex as the prime minister’s home.

In the end, this is an affair of the heart. The heart of a nation that respects history and values heritage. The heart of a nation that doesn’t tear memories down, it builds them up. The heart of a nation that honours 24 Sussex as a home for all Canadians.

This is not simply a test of construction and security issues. It is a test of whether the Canadian government actually respects history.

The restoration of 24 Sussex as the national home of our prime minister is definitely the decision Carney should make.

For those who believe in sustainable living, it makes no sense to build a behemoth in Rockcliffe when we have a perfectly suitable government precinct including Rideau Hall, Rideau Cottage and 24 Sussex. The lifespan of most buildings in Europe is more than a century. In Canada, we are quick to tear things down after thirty years. Material from building demolitions and renovations is a major contributor to our landfills.

Canada would be an international laughing stock if we decided to abandon 24 Sussex for a new build.

Let’s hope our prime minister believes that the story of Canada, expressed through built heritage, is worth saving.

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

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.