This week saw the news that Rideau Cottage, “temporary” home of the prime minister, is “inadequate.” The house is small and insufficiently secure for a head of government.

While I’m not inclined to argue that politicians ought to be living large at taxpayer expense as a rule, I’m embarrassed that the country routinely wrings its hands over where the prime minister lives and how he travels. Politicians need certain tools to do the job of governing a contemporary mass state. Debates about housing or travel, such as they are, don’t reflect serious disagreements over public policy or even our shared or disputed values. Instead, they’re occasions for nitpicking, pettiness, and supreme displays of insecurity. They’re silly and bad for us.

Today, Prime Minister Mark Carney is living at Rideau Cottage, just as Justin Trudeau did before him. He’s there because the official residence of the prime minister, 24 Sussex Drive, is a mess. It’s literally uninhabitable. The good news is that, in February 2024, the home was declared rodent and asbestos free. The bad news is that’s a declaration one hopes a G7 country wouldn’t have to make. It’s the sort of thing that ought to be implicit. Does your head of government live in a house full of carcinogens and rat droppings? Of course not! Why would you even ask? For a long time, Canada did have to ask the question, and the answer speaks to a national smallness that ought to be understood as a big shame.

top 15 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] NottaLottaOcelot@lemmy.ca 4 points 5 hours ago

No prime minister wants to be seen as investing in their own residence. One good solution would be to allow the NCC (National Capital Commission) to take on ownership of the project. It can have tours to help support funding.

Or we just give up on this Governor General stupidity and give the prime minister Rideau Hall.

[–] Lemmyoutofhere@lemmy.ca 15 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Canadians are cheap. We are the only G7 without high speed rail, in a country that could use it more than anyone.

[–] maplesaga@lemmy.world 1 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

We also have the most sprawled zoning laws, to keep us away from our neighbors.

Canada is the new money millionaire, trying to separate themselves from the riff raff.

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 18 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'd like to see a little more scrutiny of the way the media reports on and frames these things, too.

There are far too many stories that basically start and end at "this government project will cost X millions/billions/whatever," without putting any effort into exploring whether that's a lot of money in context. It's always going to sound like a lot without proper analysis.

[–] No_Maines_Land@lemmy.ca 2 points 9 hours ago

Also "this project is X millions/billions" without saying how many years the project is for.

I'm not a mathologist, but I figure there's a difference in a one time $5 infusion than $5/5 years.

[–] Greg@lemmy.ca 16 points 1 day ago (1 children)

What's the big deal? There are co working spaces downtown where Carney and the Govner General can work out of. Maybe they could hot swap a desk for a discount

[–] BinzyBoi@piefed.ca 2 points 19 hours ago

Historical significance.

It's one thing for the prime minister to be moved elsewhere for business, especially with security concerns like 24 Sussex has, but to let a property that's important to Canadian history and heritage fall into disrepair is outright irresponsible of the government.

[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Im not opposed to fixing It up, or building a new residence, but the price needs to be reasonable.

[–] HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Who decides what price is reasonable tho?

[–] Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 day ago

Reasonable considering it needs to have embassy levels of security. It ain't cheap. I'm fine with the costs and would love to stop embarassing ourselves with penny pinching.

[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Market pricing I suppose. Plus maybe up to 50% for additional security considerations

[–] krellor@fedia.io 5 points 1 day ago (2 children)

50% probably wouldn't be enough, but I don't know that details of residential development well enough. I think that baking it on size and amenities more than cost to determine if it is reasonable might be better.

Doing a one off upgrade/remodel/rebuild is always more expensive per unit or sqft than a large development that follows variations on one design and overhead diffuses costs over many units.

Add in custom design for security, which probably includes fire suppression, gardening against attack, and security infrastructure, and you are likely much more than 50% over market per sqft of remodeled space.

But you can compare features more readily. If it has five kitchens, a grand entrance with marble columns and a double stairwell, then it's well into luxury wants and not living and hosting needs plus security.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago

Im pretty sure the house is a drop in the bucket compared to the costs to make it secure and suited for its purpose. Like hundreds of % above market.

[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Yeah that's a fair point, to be honest it's hard to gauge, I suppose public proposals withholding the security details, would be a good start

[–] Auli@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 day ago

I mean we should be more imparresed about this. We can't even provide a residence for our country leader. And it is a historical building we have left to ruin. Either tear it down or fix it up. Or kick the opposition out of their residence and move the PM there. Nobody seemed to care how much that place cost.