[PinkLucy]

As I said before, you would also get the woke element in the voting if you did that.

Not to sound insensitive but everyone and their uncle would be saying you cannot do this, or you cannot use that because it may be offensive, sacred or otherwise unwelcome.

Public votes are a nice idea but when you have 30 million opinions nothing will get done, certainly not if things become polarized.

And maybe that “woke” voice (whatever that means) will remind those who are asleep of some important cultural references and requirements based on our interesting multi-cultural heritage. We can better celebrate who we are as a nation and what made and makes us Canada.

 

[Richard White]

You keep going on about woke. What exactly does that mean in the context of building an official residence? Or letting the public simply vote on competing designs?

And maybe that “woke” voice (whatever that means) will remind those who are asleep of some important cultural references and requirements based on our interesting multi-cultural heritage. We can better celebrate who we are as a nation and what made and makes us Canada.

My concern was mostly about the bringing politics into the design aspects.

Not incorporating certain features, people or designs because of their historical connotations. For example, think the John A Macdonald fiasco a few years ago or indigenous cultural appropriation.

Canadian Culture and history however it played out should be celebrated in the design not canceled, removed or silenced because something happened a long time ago. That was all I was getting at.

When it comes to designing such a prominent Canadian building it would be essential to incorporate first nations designs along with nods to former PM's and our history. Not all of it is perfect but it is who we are as a culture.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Trudeau announces new military aid, bilateral agreements during Ukraine PM’s visit​

From link.

Ukraine’s Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal signs documents with Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in Toronto on April 11.CARLOS OSORIO/Reuters

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced a range of new military, economic and cultural measures to support Ukraine in its war with Russia on Tuesday as he hosted a visit by his Ukrainian counterpart to Toronto.

The new Canadian assistance includes thousands of assault rifles, dozens of machine-guns and millions of rounds of ammunition to help the Ukrainian military fight Russian invaders.

Trudeau and Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal also signed a new agreement to help Ukrainian and Canadian youth work and travel in the two countries, along with an update to the existing Canada-Ukraine free trade deal.

Canada is also imposing new sanctions on 14 Russian individuals and 34 Russian entities, as well as nine organizations tied to the financial sector in Belarus, because of their support for Moscow’s invasion, Trudeau said.

“Canada will continue to be steadfast in our support of Ukraine as you defend yourselves heroically against Putin’s brutal, barbaric invasion,” he said during a news conference with Shmyhal. “The courage of Ukrainians is heroic.”

The Ukrainian prime minister used the occasion to thank Canada for its support since Russian forces invaded in February 2022, which has included billions of dollars in previously announced economic and military aid.

At the same time, Shmyhal underscored the need for additional military assistance as his military prepares for a spring counteroffensive in eastern Ukraine, as well as the transfer of frozen Russian assets to help with rebuilding.

Trudeau delivered a strong defence of Canada’s continued support for Ukraine, describing the war there as emblematic of the larger fight for the principles and values of peace and democracy.

“Authoritarian dictators are looking at Vladimir Putin, curious to see if he will succeed,” Trudeau said. “Because everywhere in the world, there are neighbours with larger armies than the country beside them saying: ‘Oh, wouldn’t it be nice to redraw the map?’”

Shmyhal’s visit coincided with several apparent attacks on Canadian websites, with a group claiming to support Russia taking responsibility. That included an attack on the websites of the Prime Minister’s Office and the Senate.

Trudeau said it was not uncommon for Russian hackers to target countries that support Ukraine, particularly when those countries are hosting a high-level Ukrainian delegation.

“But in case anyone was wondering,” Trudeau added, “Russia being able to bring down an official government of Canada webpage for a few hours is in no way going to dissuade us from our unshakable support of Ukraine.”

 

[kEiThZ]

When it comes to designing such a prominent Canadian building it would be essential to incorporate first nations designs along with nods to former PM's and our history.

The current building doesn't have any sort of memorial of past tenants. Why would the future one?

Our Prime Ministers are not Presidents. We should resist the urge to make them such. They should be treated as they are, glorified MPs who occupy the big chair of the Head of Government by virtue of leading the party holding the confidence of Parliament. 24 Sussex Drive should be built to represent the Canadian people and their hopes and dreams. Not to memorialize past tenants. I would much rather that house be built to remind its occupants of who they serve, than to memorialize their accomplishments.

 

[W. K. Lis]

UK's Prime Minister's Number 10 Dowling Street.

From link.

From link.

The UK PM’s official residence is at Chequers, in the countryside (Buckinghamshire). No 10 Downing Street is both the PM’s offices and a place to stay in the heart of London, just over the road from the House of Commons. The nature of the role has changed over the years, so now most PMs spend a majority of their time in No 10, and only a relatively small amount of time at Chequers.

For a look at the 30 Homes Owned by the British Royal Family click on this link.

 

[DSC]

There really is not much similarity between the living arrangements for UK and Canadian Prime Ministers. The UK PM has his home plus his main office at Number 10 Downing Street and his Finance Minister (The Chancellor of the Exchequor) lives next door at Number 12. He has a 'country home" at Chequers Court - which was given to "The Nation" in 1921.

In Canada the PM has his main office in what used to be called the Langevin Block on Wellington Street in Ottawa (a short walk to Parliament) and a country house at Harrington Lake (which was acquired by the government in the 1950s). 24 Sussex Drive was "only' the PM's home - though also used for some official social events, it was never used as the PMs main office.

 

[lenaitch]

There really is not much similarity between the living arrangements for UK and Canadian Prime Ministers. The UK PM has his home plus his main office at Number 10 Downing Street and his Finance Minister (The Chancellor of the Exchequor) lives next door at Number 12. He has a 'country home" at Chequers Court - which was given to "The Nation" in 1921.

In Canada the PM has his main office in what used to be called the Langevin Block on Wellington Street in Ottawa (a short walk to Parliament) and a country house at Harrington Lake (which was acquired by the government in the 1950s). 24 Sussex Drive was "only' the PM's home - though also used for some official social events, it was never used as the PMs main office.

Very limited. This is a shot of the dining room:

Anything that would be considered a 'State' function would be across the road at Rideau Hall (or offsite completely).

 

[kEiThZ]

In Canada the PM has his main office in what used to be called the Langevin Block on Wellington Street in Ottawa (a short walk to Parliament) and a country house at Harrington Lake (which was acquired by the government in the 1950s). 24 Sussex Drive was "only' the PM's home - though also used for some official social events, it was never used as the PMs main office.

There is nothing which says the current setup is ideal or should be maintained. Situations like this are a good opportunity to go back to first principles and look at whether what we do makes sense.

 

[DSC]

There is nothing which says the current setup is ideal or should be maintained. Situations like this are a good opportunity to go back to first principles and look at whether what we do makes sense.

That is certainly true, I was just pointing out that comparing our current arrangements for PM homes/offices to that in the UK is apples vs oranges.

 

[lenaitch]

There is nothing which says the current setup is ideal or should be maintained. Situations like this are a good opportunity to go back to first principles and look at whether what we do makes sense.

Good point, but it would likely require a complete change of venue. By combining both residential and executive functions under the current set-up, you would have residence essentially on Wellington and I don't think the 24 Sussex footprint is large enough for much office space unless perhaps if you built it out to the property lines.

 

[kEiThZ]

Good point, but it would likely require a complete change of venue. By combining both residential and executive functions under the current set-up, you would have residence essentially on Wellington and I don't think the 24 Sussex footprint is large enough for much office space unless perhaps if you built it out to the property lines.

I'm not suggesting that the whole PMO move to Sussex. Obviously having the political bureaucracy (PMO) and the civil service bureaucracy (PCO) beside each other has a lot of benefits. I'm suggesting that we should review all the functions of the Prime Minister's role and determine what should be at 24 Sussex. Maybe a review finds that all we need is another residence. Or maybe it finds, that some reception space is needed. Maybe the home needs a large SCIF so the PM can get national security briefings in their PJs. Who knows. But a good process would actually review all this.

 

[lenaitch]

Maybe they can kick move out the political staffers in the PMO (and, by extension, the PCO) and have them camp out at 24 Sussex or its replacement, or someplace else far, far away.

 

[kEiThZ]

Maybe they can kick move out the political staffers in the PMO (and, by extension, the PCO) and have them camp out at 24 Sussex or its replacement, or someplace else far, far away.

You misunderstand what those organizations do. The Privy Council Office is the highest public service bureaucracy in the country. They have no political appointees. It's senior public servants and military officers. The Prime Minister's Office are mostly political appointees, because they're a political bureaucracy whose job it is to translate political direction into policy. They tell PCO what the policy or desired effect is. PCO then turns that into specific policy direction for various ministries and agencies. It does help to have the PMO and PCO beside each other.

Example:

PM: I want a green government.
PMO: The government needs to cut emissions.
PCO: This is the green procurement framework you will follow for all your future purchases.

 

[lenaitch]

You misunderstand what those organizations do. The Privy Council Office is the highest public service bureaucracy in the country. They have no political appointees. It's senior public servants and military officers. The Prime Minister's Office are mostly political appointees, because they're a political bureaucracy whose job it is to translate political direction into policy. They tell PCO what the policy or desired effect is. PCO then turns that into specific policy direction for various ministries and agencies. It does help to have the PMO and PCO beside each other.

Example:

PM: I want a green government.
PMO: The government needs to cut emissions.
PCO: This is the green procurement framework you will follow for all your future purchases.

I very much understand how they work. My objection is with political staffers being co-located with public officers and officials. We have seen in the past when Party officials have interacted with the PCO and I'm sure there is an going level of interaction and influence. Political staff work for a different master, and it ain't the people of Canada. It's all part of the centralization of power to the PMO and away from the Executive and Parliament.

 

[kEiThZ]

I very much understand how they work. My objection is with political staffers being co-located with public officers and officials. We have seen in the past when Party officials have interacted with the PCO and I'm sure there is an going level of interaction and influence. Political staff work for a different master, and it ain't the people of Canada. It's all part of the centralization of power to the PMO and away from the Executive and Parliament.

There's multiple different issues here. Centralization in the PMO is rather different from political interference in the civil service. The first issue is really a political one for parties and parliament to resolve. The second is arguably one that is relevant to office location. But I'm not sure how much changing the physical distance between the two organizations would substantially reduce interference. What this needs is legislation so that public servants can feel free to refuse to interact with political actors outside their normal management chain.