ArmyRick
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 4,048
- Points
- 1,160
And the media grills him, the leader of the opposition but says sweet F all to the governing party.That's the easy way out of answering a tough question.
Yeah whatever.

And the media grills him, the leader of the opposition but says sweet F all to the governing party.That's the easy way out of answering a tough question.
True, very true.And the media grills him, the leader of the opposition but says sweet F all to the governing party.
Yeah whatever.
What do you mean? Just a couple days ago the media was asking PM Carney what he intends to do with 24 Sussex. He simply answered.And the media grills him, the leader of the opposition but says sweet F all to the governing party.
Yeah whatever.
What do you mean? Just a couple days ago the media was asking PM Carney what he intends to do with 24 Sussex. He simply answered.
The project will restore the property as a secure, accessible, sustainable, and functional official residence and working venue for Canada’s prime ministers, while preserving its defining heritage character.
I think most Canadians can't picture it because its not been lived in for the last decade+. There's been zero pics of a PM standing in front of the residence meeting important leaders.I was cautiously optimistic about 24 Sussex, but now I'm disappointed by this line from the PM website:
I don't think the building is significant in terms of architecture. I don't think most Canadians can even picture it in their head. It's not a national (or international) symbol of our country the way the White House is. The design and build competition should be open to demolishing the whole thing and building from scratch if the bidder wants. I'd almost prefer it be bulldozed to start with - but don't actually want to remove the ability to utilize what's there if that's practical. I think forcing the preservation of existing structure put too much constraint on what you can do with a new building and my understanding of anything historical is there's a ton of costs and challenges involved in preserving/restoring historical elements.
Re: the fundraising. Both Chretien and Harper offered to lead fundraising efforts only a couple years ago, so while Poilievre doesn't seem willing to even comment on it the last conservative PM would seem supportive of this idea. Carney also announced that donors would be public and limits on how much they can donate put in place, so there'll be some transparency.
Overall, good news to see we're finally doing something with it. This should have been solved years ago.



To be fair, given the poor state it was in, i wouldnt either. Hopefully with restoration comes a future of proper maintenance on it.I think most Canadians can't picture it because its not been lived in for the last decade+. There's been zero pics of a PM standing in front of the residence meeting important leaders.
For example:
View attachment 101007
View attachment 101008
View attachment 101009
Classic case of 'Out of sight, out of mind.'
You mean the opening of purse strings to adequately fund something 'proactive' from a maintenance perspective instead of the usual Canadian approach of 'reactive' funding?To be fair, given the poor state it was in, i wouldnt either. Hopefully with restoration comes a future of proper maintenance on it.
I feel like his response would have been different had the announcement/leak been "taxpayers on the hook for 60m" or whatever.Pierre Poilievre was asked directly about 24 Sussex and he said he is more focused and concerned with the cost of living, economy, job creation, a deal with the USA, critical minerals, etc.
You think he is unaware of the cost? Pierre pretty tight on the numbers.I feel like his response would have been different had the announcement/leak been "taxpayers on the hook for 60m" or whatever.
I feel like the fundraising aspect of the it rather than the taxpayer aspect of it makes it a big ole nothing burger.You think he is unaware of the cost? Pierre pretty tight on the numbers.
He doesn't complain about every dollar spent by government, he just expects every dollar be spent responsibly and with accountability.
"I Feel" in other words, your guessing, and thats all it is.
Wait so I shouldnt change my filters every six months? Incould of saved money and let the furnace be future mes problem!?You mean the opening of purse strings to adequately fund something 'proactive' from a maintenance perspective instead of the usual Canadian approach of 'reactive' funding?
Best example would be - Canadian's funding anything of public value is like a homeowner who changes their furnace air filter once every 10yrs because an air filter costs so much money and then they wonder why the life span on their furnace is only 14yrs instead of the usual 20yrs.
Wait so I shouldnt change my filters every six months? Incould of saved money and let the furnace be future mes problem!?
So we shouldn't have a safe, functional and secure residence for the leader of our country to live in and conduct official business? That's absurd.You think he is unaware of the cost? Pierre pretty tight on the numbers.
He doesn't complain about every dollar spent by government, he just expects every dollar be spent responsibly and with accountability.
"I Feel" in other words, your guessing, and thats all it is.