Why are we being so stingy on fixing up 24 Sussex?

Would any other country begrudge its prime minister a proper home?

The debate over what to do with 24 Sussex Drive is becoming tiresome.

Every now and then, we get ourselves in a tizzy over whether to fix the decrepit home of our prime ministers or raze it and build a new one. A report from the National Capital Commission raises the question of whether we should spend $34.5 million on renovations or $38.5 million to build a new edifice. Should we even be debating this?

The real question is not whether to renovate or build anew, but rather: Are Canadians so cheap and insecure that we cannot bring ourselves to build decent premises for our prime ministers? Is a proud country of 37 million people and a gross domestic product of more than US$1.6 trillion so low in self-confidence that spending $38 million to build a home for the leader and face of our democracy has become such an intolerable burden?

Maybe we should just tear down the damn building and buy — actually, no — rent a three-bedroom townhouse in Gatineau, Barrhaven, or maybe Orléans for the prime minister. After all, we are a modest and thrifty nation and our prime ministers will just have to make do with such accommodation. Then we can all go out and celebrate how frugal we are, and what an inspiration we are to the world. Really.

The actual reason for the paralysis over 24 Sussex is fear of public backlash against any prime minister who dares spend millions to fix the crumbling, 150-yearold building. “There’s a real challenge in this country,” Justin Trudeau told the CBC about the mansion. “Anything a prime minister decides that they can potentially benefit from — that’s one of the reasons that the house has gone into the ground since the time I lived there (as a child) — is that no prime minister wants to spend a penny of taxpayer dollars on upkeeping that house.”

Former prime minister Paul Martin has acknowledged that he didn’t maintain the building he knew was in a bad shape, and nether did his predecessors (nor successors, one might add) because no one wanted to face the wrath of Canadians. Indeed, Brian Mulroney was said to have been warned by then governor-general Jeanne Sauvé that he would be crucified if he tried to renovate the building. “In this town, no good deed goes unpunished,” she reportedly told him.

The logic of it all is baffling. Report after report shows that everything, including windows, plumbing, air conditioning, heating, water, appliances, electrical systems — you name it — is falling apart. The building has no fire sprinklers and is infested with asbestos. This important national asset is a virtual death trap but our leaders are so afraid of how negatively Canadians will react to fixing it that they’d rather let it crumble. And that’s a good thing? Talk about profiles in courage.

The auditor general once put the cost of repairs at $10 million. Now the NCC says $34 million. And we think we are being prudent by letting the building fall apart? All this is on Canadians because we have intimidated our leaders into inaction.

Trudeau has said in interviews that he has no intention of moving back into the building anytime soon. That’s an opportunity. We should, as a country, use the time to raze the building and construct a brand new one in its place. One thing we should be clear about is that 24 Sussex does not belong to any prime minister. It did not belong to Stephen Harper, Jean Chrétien and all the others when they lived there, and it doesn’t belong to Trudeau, whether he lives there or not. It belongs to the nation.

Let’s not turn the decision to build a new home for our prime ministers into a political hammer to bash each other. There should be all-party agreement to build a new 24 Sussex. It is not un-Canadian to build a decent prime ministerial home befitting this nation.

Mohammed Adam is an Ottawa writer.