this post was submitted on 25 Jun 2026
25 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

12169 readers
223 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 Sports

Baseball

Basketball

Curling

Hockey

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


🌐 Other Relevant Communities


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] CapuccinoCoretto@lemmy.world 15 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (1 children)

I'd rather it be publicly funded. "Donations" reeks of corruption like Trump's White House ballroom boondoggle.

24 Sussex is an embarrassment. Just build something dignified for the position and be done with it.

The virtue signalling around not touching is nausiating. It's a house. Just fucking build it.

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 8 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

“Donations” reeks of corruption like Trump’s White House ballroom boondoggle.

I don't really see the comparison. Nothing about this screams "vanity project," down to the fact that the work won't be done until long after his time as PM is over. And the fundraising is being handled by an established charity - it's pretty tough to paint a picture of influence-peddling.

[–] CapuccinoCoretto@lemmy.world 7 points 4 weeks ago

Not a vanity project. I just don't like corps or the wealthy "donating" to this. Like we don't have enough collusion already. I like my public assets public.

[–] cecilkorik@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (1 children)

it’s pretty tough to paint a picture of influence-peddling.

It really isn't, if you have any familiarity with how corrupt charities can be in how they operate and how they get run. The WE Charity scandal wasn't even more than one Prime Minister ago, and not to defend it (or Trudeau) but frankly, it was far from being as bad as actual charity corruption can get

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 3 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

That's a helluva thing to imply about a charity set up by the GG.

[–] cecilkorik@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

I was not intending to imply anything even close to that specific, my comment was meant in a general sense, but at this point in my personal journey of attempting to understand the world we live in, it so happens that I don't trust any particular human in any position of power or authority, so I don't see why the governor general should get a free pass.

If you want me to go ahead imply that there is a possibility they and the charity they set up are corrupt, I'd be happy to stand behind that implication, with the caveat that I don't have any evidence of that at all, and I don't have any intention of ever attempting to find or provide any. It is a totally baseless position, because I'm totally comfortable assuming all people in positions of power are corrupt by default. That is my personal position. I am not forcing anyone else to do the same. Feel free to take my opinion for every cent it's worth; I'm not going to charge you for it.

Well, that being the case, I guess that means this plan is exactly as bad as any other possibility.