24 Sussex Drive [Prime Minister's residence] | Vacant

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by phil235

Not suggesting that the entire PMO would move there. But there would definitely be an advantage to being able to have some close advisors, chief of staff etc work there when needed, plus you’ve got administrative people, security etc. Seems pretty easy to imagine how it could be used effectively.

How is it effective to move these people to the PM’s residence? The PM has to be downtown anyway for Parliament, Cabinet, Caucus, etc. so the PM has to be downtown most most days anyway, but all of his close advisors are back at his house. I don’t see how that would be effective.

[casper]

Some inspiration of what could happen.....

One of the more recent residences that was fully renovated in Canada would be Government House in Victoria, BC. This is used by the LG for BC.

Renovations include new modern HVAC, removal of asbestos and a weird styling that combines indigenous with colonial. Government House includes a great hall that is frequently used for banquets seating up to 250.

https://www.timescolonist.com/homes/...rn-age-6013865

As for the idea of moving people from Parliament Hill to the residence. That is going to create more problems than it solves. I could see having the people involved with the residence or organising events at the residence being there but the rest probably belong on parliament hill. You want to foster communication with the rest of government and not artificially create a silo.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by acottawa

For what purpose?

It's a 24-7 job so having office staff where the PM's family is is conducive to better work and work life balance. Can put the kids to bed and meet again with staff. It's also easier to host foreign leaders (or premiers etc. )when the staff is located on site. Easier means better at the end of the day if you believe these meetings have any value.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by acottawa

How is it effective to move these people to the PM’s residence? The PM has to be downtown anyway for Parliament, Cabinet, Caucus, etc. so the PM has to be downtown most most days anyway, but all of his close advisors are back at his house. I don’t see how that would be effective.

I'm not sure that it's true that the PM is downtown most days. There are long stretches when Parliament isn't in session. There is also a lot of travel. I would think that it would save the PM time if he could work from 24 Sussex on non-sitting days and before or after travelling, rather than having to go downtown.

In the case of senior advisors, I wasn't thinking of moving them. Like the PM, they would have two offices - one downtown and one in the residence.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

It's a 24-7 job so having office staff where the PM's family is is conducive to better work and work life balance. Can put the kids to bed and meet again with staff. It's also easier to host foreign leaders (or premiers etc. )when the staff is located on site. Easier means better at the end of the day if you believe these meetings have any value.

So you expect the staffers to stay at the PM's house 24/7 in case they are needed off hours?

People on this thread watched way too much West Wing.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by phil235

I'm not sure that it's true that the PM is downtown most days. There are long stretches when Parliament isn't in session. There is also a lot of travel. I would think that it would save the PM time if he could work from 24 Sussex on non-sitting days and before or after travelling, rather than having to go downtown.

In the case of senior advisors, I wasn't thinking of moving them. Like the PM, they would have two offices - one downtown and one in the residence.

If Parliament isn't in session the PM is rarely in town; he is travelling, on vacation, at Harrington Lake, in his constituency, etc.

Maybe there is a need to have a satellite secretary at the residence to organize calls, but none of that justifies a large office building.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by acottawa

So you expect the staffers to stay at the PM's house 24/7 in case they are needed off hours?

People on this thread watched way too much West Wing.

There are regular meetings in the evening. His house would be their office so instead of waiting they would be working.

Originally Posted by acottawa

If Parliament isn't in session the PM is rarely in town; he is travelling, on vacation, at Harrington Lake, in his constituency, etc.

Maybe there is a need to have a satellite secretary at the residence to organize calls, but none of that justifies a large office building.

I think rarely is a stretch. PMs are also not at Parliament all day even when in session. This PM lives in Ottawa so is here much more than constituency. Harrington Lake is only because the residence is more comfortable.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

There are regular meetings in the evening. His house would be their office so instead of waiting they would be working.



I think rarely is a stretch. PMs are also not at Parliament all day even when in session. This PM lives in Ottawa so is here much more than constituency. Harrington Lake is only because the residence is more comfortable.

No, he is not at Parliament all day, but it makes sense for him to work out of his office on the hill when parliament is in session (as all of his predecessors have done) so he can chair cabinet and caucus meetings, meet with ministers, get briefed by officials, etc. Moving a steady stream of people up and down Sussex all day makes little sense.

Harrington lake exists because PMs like having a cottage. They will still want a cottage even if the NCC builds a large office building at 24 Sussex, probably they will want one even more as their home becomes a large workplace.

[acottawa]

I get the sense that people are starting with the assumption that there needs to be a big building at 24 Sussex and then working backwards on ways to change longstanding practices to justify a big building at 24 Sussex.

[Ottawacurious]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I get the sense that people are starting with the assumption that there needs to be a big building at 24 Sussex and then working backwards on ways to change longstanding practices to justify a big building at 24 Sussex.

I agree. Being clear on the objectives makes it much easier to develop the best overall solution.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I get the sense that people are starting with the assumption that there needs to be a big building at 24 Sussex and then working backwards on ways to change longstanding practices to justify a big building at 24 Sussex.

No assumption here, and definitely no assumption on the size of building needed. This has been discussed in the reports on options for the building, and it seems pretty clear to me that a PM could make good use of offices there and be more productive if he so chose. It's a busy job, so saving travel time definitely matters.

I get that moving to a West Wing type set up is a big decision and would have other implications, so I'm not sure about that. But adamantly opposing a suite of offices at the residence for the PM and his close advisors really seems odd to me. Is the cost of providing that really such a big deal?

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by phil235

No assumption here, and definitely no assumption on the size of building needed. This has been discussed in the reports on options for the building, and it seems pretty clear to me that a PM could make good use of offices there and be more productive if he so chose. It's a busy job, so saving travel time definitely matters.

I get that moving to a West Wing type set up is a big decision and would have other implications, so I'm not sure about that. But adamantly opposing a suite of offices at the residence for the PM and his close advisors really seems odd to me. Is the cost of providing that really such a big deal?

A suite of offices is something that nobody is asking for. Former PMs have complained about the state of repair of 24 Sussex, none of them has complained about the lack of a suite of offices. I have seen no mention of the current PM or present or former staff complaining about the lack of a suite of offices. None of the newspaper articles on the subject (including several linked on this thread) have noted the lack of a suite of offices as a problem.

The Government has owned the Diefenbaker building (former Ottawa city hall) for decades, the building has never been fully utilized, and PMO never expressed any interest in putting a suite of offices there. The Canadian Geographic building (maybe a 1 or two minute walk from 24 Sussex) was vacant for years and could easily have been turned into a suit of offices, but again the PMO showed no interest.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I get the sense that people are starting with the assumption that there needs to be a big building at 24 Sussex and then working backwards on ways to change longstanding practices to justify a big building at 24 Sussex.

On one had this is a good point but I think a residence only won't get built. They will need to throw in a office space to justify spending anywhere near what is required.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

On one had this is a good point but I think a residence only won't get built. They will need to throw in a office space to justify spending anywhere near what is required.

But I think this goes back to my earlier point. People are starting from the position that a big building is needed at 24 Sussex and working backwards by proposing changes to longstanding practices to try to justify the big building.

Maybe we just don’t need a big building at 24 Sussex. And maybe Rideau Cottage is a good long term solution.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by acottawa

A suite of offices is something that nobody is asking for. Former PMs have complained about the state of repair of 24 Sussex, none of them has complained about the lack of a suite of offices. I have seen no mention of the current PM or present or former staff complaining about the lack of a suite of offices. None of the newspaper articles on the subject (including several linked on this thread) have noted the lack of a suite of offices as a problem.

That’s a pretty categorical statement. Not sure how you could possibly know that “nobody” is asking for it. I’ve definitely read complaints about the inability to host premiers and other dignitaries in the house, so it has been considered.

We do know for sure that the NCC felt that it was at least useful enough to include it as an option in their report, so I’d take that as an indication that someone with actual knowledge of how the office functions sees the utility in it.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by phil235

That’s a pretty categorical statement. Not sure how you could possibly know that “nobody” is asking for it. I’ve definitely read complaints about the inability to host premiers and other dignitaries in the house, so it has been considered.

We do know for sure that the NCC felt that it was at least useful enough to include it as an option in their report, so I’d take that as an indication that someone with actual knowledge of how the office functions sees the utility in it.

Fair enough. How about “in the dozens of comments and articles I have seen related to the prime ministers residence, none have mentioned the lack of a suite of offices as a deficiency or an urgent need.” This combined with a lack of any steps taken by PMO to get a suite of offices near 24 Sussex (despite many options being available) I think makes it reasonable to conclude nobody is looking for a suite of offices. This push for offices seems to come mostly from third parties whose main objective seems to be justifying a large building.

The NCC report makes no mention of a lack of a suite of offices as a problem. It does note the lack of accessibility, too small of a kitchen and many issues with the state of repair.

https://ncc-website-2.s3.amazonaws.c..._2021-EN-1.pdf

News reports on the NCC proposal (which is not public as far as I can tell) make no mention of offices.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/24-...lans-1.6426781

Why would a suite of offices be needed to host premiers and dignitaries?

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by acottawa

But I think this goes back to my earlier point. People are starting from the position that a big building is needed at 24 Sussex and working backwards by proposing changes to longstanding practices to try to justify the big building.

Maybe we just don’t need a big building at 24 Sussex. And maybe Rideau Cottage is a good long term solution.

To me it is a bit embarrassing that our PM lives as a guest of the GG and has nowhere to host others. In our situation it certainly matters. It's easier for Biden to ignore what Trudeau says when he visits next month when it seems like a visit to a country like Sweden where the PM takes the Metro. A new spectacular residence built with BC Cedar and Ontario Granite etc would be a good investment. I think the only way we actually approve such a building would be a full office residential complex. For Ottawa it's just nice to get the GG grounds back and the construction jobs won't hurt either. I guess it will only be visible from the river but a nice modern building always welcome. The new UK Embassy is a nice addition to the river "skyline".

[phil235]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Fair enough. How about “in the dozens of comments and articles I have seen related to the prime ministers residence, none have mentioned the lack of a suite of offices as a deficiency or an urgent need.” This combined with a lack of any steps taken by PMO to get a suite of offices near 24 Sussex (despite many options being available) I think makes it reasonable to conclude nobody is looking for a suite of offices. This push for offices seems to come mostly from third parties whose main objective seems to be justifying a large building.

The NCC report makes no mention of a lack of a suite of offices as a problem. It does note the lack of accessibility, too small of a kitchen and many issues with the state of repair.

https://ncc-website-2.s3.amazonaws.c..._2021-EN-1.pdf

News reports on the NCC proposal (which is not public as far as I can tell) make no mention of offices.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/24-...lans-1.6426781

Why would a suite of offices be needed to host premiers and dignitaries?

I did a quick search and found a couple of recent articles where experts, including two former Clerks of the Privy Council explain the reasons for meeting rooms and reception facilities at 24 Sussex. The second one outlines the NCC proposal for the residence. It isn't just random posters on SSP making these suggestions.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/poli...-pm-residence/

"Mel Cappe, who led the civil service as privy council clerk from 1999 to 2002, said living in Rideau Cottage means Mr. Trudeau can’t even host the premiers of the provinces and territories, because the home isn’t suited for that.

“It is pathetic that we, as a G7 country, can’t afford to build a reasonable residence for the prime minister of Canada. It is unbelievable to me,” said Mr. Cappe, who is now a professor at the Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy at the University of Toronto.

“We should have the capacity for the prime minister to host his cabinet for a meeting, like Number 10 [Downing Street], like in the White House, where these official properties are used for official business,” he added.

Michael Wernick, who was privy council clerk from 2016 to 2019 and now holds the Jarislowsky chair in public sector management at the University of Ottawa, said Rideau Cottage has its merits. He noted that the property is secure, because it is on the easily patrolled grounds of Rideau Hall, and not as exposed as 24 Sussex Drive.

“And it is reasonably comfortable for a family space,” he said. “It fails the test on entertaining and office space and being able to meet with staff there and so on.”

The interior of the structure, he said, should include a modest office for the prime minister, and a secure meeting room. “Having a conference-room-type setup where you can have 10 to 15 people securely, so the Chinese or the Americans aren’t listening, is probably a good idea.”

And it should allow the prime minister to host small gatherings. ”You need a kind of modest entertaining facility that any embassy in Rockcliffe or Sandy Hill would have,” Mr. Wernick said, referring to a pair of downtown Ottawa neighbourhoods.

A study by HOK Architects prepared for the NCC and released earlier this year made the case for a residence that would combine a private home with space for a long list of functions, including operational space for support staff and security staff.

The report says 24 Sussex Drive lacks space for ceremonial or official events, dealing with the media and other typical functions of a prime minister.

“While previous prime ministers and their staff have ‘made do’ with the space provided within the current facility, the building has naturally limited the functions that could be performed, and now falls far short when compared to other G7 and Commonwealth nations,” the report says."

And the article on the NCC:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/24-...lans-1.6426781

"The report by the National Capital Commission outlines numerous requirements for a new official residence, which likely would be larger than 24 Sussex and better equipped to host high-level visitors and dignitaries.

"Most G7 and Commonwealth leaders receive official visitors in a space dedicated for these purposes. Canada currently lacks such a facility," the report reads.

The residence at 24 Sussex, it continues, "is very limited in its ability to support official functions, with poor accessibility, insufficient sized rooms and lack of support spaces."

Trudeau says he's looking at options for the crumbling prime minister's residence at 24 Sussex

The report says the lack of a dedicated hosting space for diplomatic visits and government events has forced the federal government to take an "ad-hoc" approach that includes renting spaces, which presents logistical and security challenge."

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

To me it is a bit embarrassing that our PM lives as a guest of the GG and has nowhere to host others. In our situation it certainly matters. It's easier for Biden to ignore what Trudeau says when he visits next month when it seems like a visit to a country like Sweden where the PM takes the Metro. A new spectacular residence built with BC Cedar and Ontario Granite etc would be a good investment. I think the only way we actually approve such a building would be a full office residential complex. For Ottawa it's just nice to get the GG grounds back and the construction jobs won't hurt either. I guess it will only be visible from the river but a nice modern building always welcome. The new UK Embassy is a nice addition to the river "skyline".

This is where people are watching way too much West Wing. The Prime Minister is not the Head of State, or the Head of State's representative in Canada. If Joe Biden visits it is highly unlikely he would visit the residence of the PM, even if it were made of BC Cedar. If he did, it would be for a very informal, very small gathering. For the same reason when Biden visits the UK he doesn't go to Number 10.

The PM has lots of places to host others. The official guest house at 7 Rideau Gate can host a range of events. The Pearson Building has has an entire floor used for nothing but hospitality functions. The Diefenbaker building has a number of hospitality options as does Parliament Hill. Also, Harrington Lake is very popular with foreign leaders, it gets them some Canadiana for their instagram accounts.

And frankly, this PM, like his predecessor, has generally avoided stuffy formal venues for more informal venues. You may recall a few years ago he had lunch with the Belgian PM at Claude's chip wagon. He had dinner with Obama at Liverpool House in Montreal House a few years ago.

I get it that there is a nostalgia for the Mad Men era when the PM's spouse might host dinner parties for Ottawa socialites. That era is gone.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by acottawa

This is where people are watching way too much West Wing. The Prime Minister is not the Head of State, or the Head of State's representative in Canada. If Joe Biden visits it is highly unlikely he would visit the residence of the PM, even if it were made of BC Cedar. If he did, it would be for a very informal, very small gathering. For the same reason when Biden visits the UK he doesn't go to Number 10.

The PM has lots of places to host others. The official guest house at 7 Rideau Gate can host a range of events. The Pearson Building has has an entire floor used for nothing but hospitality functions. The Diefenbaker building has a number of hospitality options as does Parliament Hill. Also, Harrington Lake is very popular with foreign leaders, it gets them some Canadiana for their instagram accounts.

And frankly, this PM, like his predecessor, has generally avoided stuffy formal venues for more informal venues. You may recall a few years ago he had lunch with the Belgian PM at Claude's chip wagon. He had dinner with Obama at Liverpool House in Montreal House a few years ago.

I get it that there is a nostalgia for the Mad Men era when the PM's spouse might host dinner parties for Ottawa socialites. That era is gone.

I am not sure what show you are watching but this post is incorrect. Every president visits #10. If you want maybe our most analogous counterpart Australia hosts leaders in both Sydney and Canaberra official residences. For the bilateral meetings and usually a lunch breakfast etc with PM and spouse. Yes a state dinner of 250 is unlikely to take place there but a secure and majestic location still has value.