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

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by jeremy_haak

I strongly disagree with making 24 Sussex an executive office. Keeping the PMO on the hill or at least adjacent to it jives with it being an arm of the legislative branch.

It isn't an arm of the legislative branch. It is the secretariat for the PM, which is the executive branch.

[passwordisnt123]

If you already own the land, $40 million dollars can build you a pretty amazing custom-built mansion with all the highest end finishes to your heart's content.

I agree with what other people have said here. Knock the thing down and start fresh. The building has no historical significance beyond its address which wouldn't change anyways. It serves no state function. It's basically just a place to store the PM away for the night. If a $40 million mansion isn't enough for the PM, then we need to re-evaluate our priorities.

[Mikeed]

Originally Posted by acottawa

It isn't an arm of the legislative branch. It is the secretariat for the PM, which is the executive branch.

There is no separation in Canada between the executive branch and the legislative branch - there is in no way 3 separate branches of government in Canada. This is an imported Americanism that has even found its way into our school system.

The executive branch in Canada is Cabinet- which is a committee that sits in and is a member of the legislature. The PM (not mentioned in the Constitution in anyway) is the "first among equal"- at least in theory- that chairs this Committee of legislatures.

The PMO/Privy Council office has drastically expanded in recent years and represents the centralization of power in a nearly Presidential-like system. And has had distorting effects on Canadian government over the past couple decades. But it is here to stay.

There is an executive branch of government, but it is in no way independent from the legislature. As that would undermine the foundational principle of Parliamentary Supremacy. (It has been undermined by a number of events in the evolution of Canadian government, like the Charter)

Though I see now that you are be referring to the Privy Council / PMO bureaucracy that are members of the civil service which I part of the executive branch. This is just a pet peeve of mine seeing how it is often taught in Canadian public schools 'the three separate branches of government which interact between each other with checks and balances"- which is factually wrong.

What should be noted is the Privy Council is a constitutional body and is really the functional office of applying the decisions of executive branch of government and supporting Cabinet. It is the independent civil service. The PMO is a partisan office wholly within the body of the PM to do what he wishes with.

[passwordisnt123]

Originally Posted by acottawa

It isn't an arm of the legislative branch. It is the secretariat for the PM, which is the executive branch.

The PM is not technically the executive branch of government, even though he does exercise de facto control via his central role in the cabinet. Since the executive branch of Canada's government is the crown, the PM's role is mostly derived from constitutional convention and the PMO has absolutely no constitutional basis for its authority, it only has authority by convention.

Even cabinet isn't technically considered the executive since it just advises the crown on orders-in-council which, by convention, the crown always accepts but is technically under no constitutional obligation to do so.

You may be thinking of the Privy Council Office (PCO) which is a committee of the Queen's Privy Council.

[kwoldtimer]

From the Parliament of Canada website:

In Canada, the executive branch of government comprises of the Crown (the Head of State, represented in Canada by the Governor General), the Prime Minister (the Head of Government) and the Cabinet. The executive is the branch of government that makes and implements the decisions required to maintain the rule of law and the well-being of Canadians. (my bold)

[passwordisnt123]

Originally Posted by Mikeed

There is no separation in Canada between the executive branch and the legislative branch - there is in no way 3 separate branches of government in Canada. This is an imported Americanism that has even found its way into our school system.

The executive branch in Canada is Cabinet- which is a committee that sits in and is a member of the legislature. The PM (not mentioned in the Constitution in anyway) is the "first among equal"- at least in theory- that chairs this Committee of legislatures.

The PMO/Privy Council office has drastically expanded in recent years and represents the centralization of power in a nearly Presidential-like system. And has had distorting effects on Canadian government over the past couple decades. But it is here to stay.

There is an executive branch of government, but it is in no way independent from the legislature. As that would undermine the foundational principle of Parliamentary Supremacy. (It has been undermined by a number of events in the evolution of Canadian government, like the Charter)

Though I see now that you are be referring to the Privy Council / PMO bureaucracy that are members of the civil service which I part of the executive branch. This is just a pet peeve of mine seeing how it is often taught in Canadian public schools 'the three separate branches of government which interact between each other with checks and balances"- which is factually wrong.

Cabinet isn't technically the executive branch of Canada. Cabinet advises the executive (the crown) and, by convention, the crown always accepts Cabinet's advice. Full authority of disallowance and powers of reservation are still in effect in Canada (though they haven't been used since the 1920s) so the Crown is technically under no constitutional obligation to accept the advice of Cabinet, which is think is messed up personally but nothing I can do about that. We haven't gotten around to fixing that part of our constitution yet.

[passwordisnt123]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

From the Parliament of Canada website:

In Canada, the executive branch of government comprises of the Crown (the Head of State, represented in Canada by the Governor General), the Prime Minister (the Head of Government) and the Cabinet. The executive is the branch of government that makes and implements the decisions required to maintain the rule of law and the well-being of Canadians. (my bold)

Yes. What's missing from that synopsis is the distinction between de facto and de jure. They're talking de facto. I'm talking de jure. I'll admit that I am being slightly cheeky here because I'm sneaking in a constitutional argument that so long as the crown's disallowance and reservation powers remain in effect in Canada (which they are), that there is an important distinction between the de facto executive and the de jure executive.

[Mikeed]

Originally Posted by passwordisnt123

Even cabinet isn't technically considered the executive since it just advises the crown on orders-in-council which, by convention, the crown always accepts but is technically under no constitutional obligation to do so.

I will say that the Crown is bound by duty to act in accordance to responsible government. Which is to say the power of the Crown must be exercised only by elected officials. Which in N.America dates back to first Nova Scotia in the 1848 and then the United Provinces of Canada later that year. Only in an emergency can the Monarch use it's Royal Prerogatives to act in the interest of the State and the people. When the BNA Act of 1867 was agreed the recognition of both of Crown being Sovereign and having "a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom" enshrining the British Bill of Rights and the whole bit of history in the UK over killing the King over the issue of his interpretation of 'divine right of King' and tilting government back to the idealized Anglo Saxon principle of "rule by consent" (circa like 500) by warrior Kings, during the Glorious Revolution and following Bill of Rights 1689:

> the pretended power of suspending the laws and dispensing with laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal

A 327 year old principle. Which in the political rhetoric of the day was largely spoken of as a similar restoration that the Magna Carta represented some nearly 500 years earlier when the Norman invasion was also seen in the following years to have severed the Anglo Saxon principle of rule by consent. Again, that was another idealized rhetoric, not 100% fact, but powerful none the less.

The Stuart Monarchs really liked the idea of "divine right of Kings" as seen in France, which resulted in their dethroning and one of them loosing his head. And eventually the Glorious Revolution and Bill of Rights. The "pretended power" which implies that the people, through Parliament, latching onto that mythic idea of the Anglo-Saxon Kings ruling by consent in the era of 500-1066, as Warrior Kings protecting the people from the Danes and Viking invasions. Kind of like how a Pirate ship was largely a democracy under the Captain in all matters but rules of engagement and war, I suppose.

In political terms, Canada is both a federal state and a parliamentary democracy. It is also a constitutional monarchy with a responsible system of government. Responsible governments are elected by the people and are accountable to their duly elected representatives. A cornerstone of our system lies in the principle that governments use power but never possess it; power remains vested in the Crown and is only “entrusted” to governments to use on behalf of the people. In this way, power resides with a non-partisan institution that is above the political give and take inherent in the daily operations of government in every democracy. Simply stated, in Canada as a constitutional monarchy, the government rules while the Crown reigns.

And the Crown in a large part gets its authority from the concept of time immemorial - it has always existed into the mists of time- ,rule by consent as represented by the warrior Kings of the Anglo-Saxons defending the nation-state above the fray of every day politics. (local shires) And representative of the social contract that one submits to authority of law and good governance, and the subjectivity requires duty to the State like paying taxes in exchange for being a citizenship of the commonwealth; or political union, and having his inalienable rights protected (by the Crown, not the PM). A lot of this stuff goes back to the Age of Enlightment thinkers, like Rousseau, Hobbes and Locke.

Disallowance and Reservation are powers in the Constitution that is only actionable by the Cabinet of the Federal Parliament (via responsible government), and have been recognized as no longer being constitutional powers that can be used by the Feds- in a kind of 'use it or loose it principle'.

EDIT:
Kind of a thing of interest to me. I really wonder what will happen when QE2 dies. Hopefully we develop into a Crowned Republic- as I see no reason why the Crown can't be personified by an elected or appointed official. Worse case will be a Presidential system where the PM assumes the powers of the GG. But this is way off the subject of this thread. Fun fact: the only part of our Constitution vetoed by Imperial Parliament was the name: Kingdom of Canada, was deemed provocative towards the States, and presumptuous- putting it on the same footing as the UK.

[passwordisnt123]

Originally Posted by Mikeed

I will say that the Crown is bound by duty to act in accordance to responsible government. Which is to say the power of the Crown must be exercised only by elected officials. Which in N.America dates back to first Nova Scotia in the 1848 and then the United Provinces of Canada later that year. Only in an emergency can the Monarch use it's Royal Prerogatives to act in the interest of the State and the people. When the BNA Act of 1867 was agreed the recognition of both of Crown being Sovereign and having "a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom" enshrining the British Bill of Rights and the whole bit of history in the UK over killing the King over the issue of his interpretation of 'divine right of King' and tilting government back to the idealized Anglo Saxon principle of "rule by consent" (circa like 500) by warrior Kings, during the Glorious Revolution and following Bill of Rights 1689:

> the pretended power of suspending the laws and dispensing with laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal

A 327 year old principle. Which in the political rhetoric of the day was largely spoken of as a similar restoration that the Magna Carta represented some nearly 500 years earlier when the Norman invasion was also seen in the following years to have severed the Anglo Saxon principle of rule by consent. Again, that was another idealized rhetoric, not 100% fact, but powerful none the less.

The Stuart Monarchs really liked the idea of "divine right of Kings" as seen in France, which resulted in their dethroning and one of them loosing his head. And eventually the Glorious Revolution and Bill of Rights. The "pretended power" which implies that the people, through Parliament, latching onto that mythic idea of the Anglo-Saxon Kings ruling by consent in the era of 500-1066, as Warrior Kings protecting the people from the Danes and Viking invasions. Kind of like how a Pirate ship was largely a democracy under the Captain in all matters but rules of engagement and war, I suppose.



And the Crown in a large part gets its authority from the concept of time immemorial - it has always existed into the mists of time- ,rule by consent as represented by the warrior Kings of the Anglo-Saxons defending the nation-state above the fray of every day politics. (local shires) And representative of the social contract that one submits to authority of law and good governance, and the subjectivity requires duty to the State like paying taxes in exchange for being a citizenship of the commonwealth; or political union, and having his inalienable rights protected (by the Crown, not the PM). A lot of this stuff goes back to the Age of Enlightment thinkers, like Rousseau, Hobbes and Locke.

Disallowance and Reservation are powers in the Constitution that is only actionable by the Cabinet of the Federal Parliament (via responsible government), and have been recognized as no longer being constitutional powers that can be used by the Feds- in a kind of 'use it or loose it principle'.

EDIT:
Kind of a thing of interest to me. I really wonder what will happen when QE2 dies. Hopefully we develop into a Crowned Republic- as I see no reason why the Crown can't be personified by an elected or appointed official. Worse case will be a Presidential system where the PM assumes the powers of the GG. But this is way off the subject of this thread. Fun fact: the only part of our Constitution vetoed by Imperial Parliament was the name: Kingdom of Canada, was deemed provocative towards the States, and presumptuous- putting it on the same footing as the UK.

I think we've officially derailed the conversation in this thread

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by jeremy_haak

I strongly disagree with making 24 Sussex an executive office. Keeping the PMO on the hill or at least adjacent to it jives with it being an arm of the legislative branch.

Exactly. No need for a White House North.

I'd be OK with renovating the existing house at a reasonable cost, and, maybe in the future, building an outbuilding to serve as a protocol room for Prime Ministerial occasions... but no need for a West Wing. That's what Langevin is for.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Mikeed

There is no separation in Canada between the executive branch and the legislative branch - there is in no way 3 separate branches of government in Canada. This is an imported Americanism that has even found its way into our school system.

The executive branch is responsible to the legislature, yes, but that doesn't mean there isn't a separate executive branch, because there is.

[Mikeed]

Originally Posted by passwordisnt123

I think we've officially derailed the conversation in this thread

I just, I just love history.. lol

Again, I feel like if we're spending $40 million on this we gotta get some bang for this buck. Make it so it can host First Minister meetings, and regardless it will probably have a remote office attache to the GOC.

[Mikeed]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

The executive branch is responsible to the legislature, yes, but that doesn't mean there isn't a separate executive branch, because there is.

No, there is not:

Fusion of powers is a feature of parliamentary democracies, especially those following the Westminster system, where the executive and legislative branches of government are intermingled. It is often contrasted with the more strict separation of powers found in most presidential democracies.

I have no idea how you can argue that when the executive branch sits in, and is responsible to the legislative branch. That is not separate.

Does the executive branch exist? Yes, made up of Crown and Cabinet, and a separate bureaucracy. Are they separated? No, they are literally intertwined and one is subordinate to the other. The legislative branch is supreme.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Mikeed

No, there is not:

I have no idea how you can argue that when the executive branch sits in, and is responsible to the legislative branch. That is not separate.

Because they still exercise their own respective powers.

Does the executive branch exist? Yes, made up of Crown and Cabinet, and a separate bureaucracy. Are they separated? No, they are literally intertwined and one is subordinate to the other. The legislative branch is supreme.

No, one is responsible to the other.

[acottawa]

In a parliamentary system of government there is obviously overlap between the executive and legislative branches (because by convention members of the cabinet are drawn from the house of commons and/or senate) but they are distinct legal entities. Cabinet ministers take separate oaths, have separate parliamentary/cabinet email address and separate staff in their parliamentary and cabinet offices. When the legislative branch is dissolved before an election, cabinet ministers retain their posts until a new government is formed.

[rocketphish]

Majority of Canadians support replacing 24 Sussex: Nanos poll

Laura Stone
OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail
Published Sunday, Dec. 25, 2016 6:44PM EST | Last updated Sunday, Dec. 25, 2016 6:46PM EST

He grew up at 24 Sussex Dr., but Prime Minister Justin Trudeau might want to consider tearing down his childhood home.

More than half of Canadians think the federal government should replace the prime minister’s residence with a new building if it’s cheaper than the estimated $38-million renovation, according to a new poll from Nanos Research Group.

Nationally, 54 per cent of Canadians think the residence should be replaced, while 34 per cent want it renovated. Another 12 per cent are unsure, according to the poll, which surveyed 1,000 Canadians between Dec. 16 and Dec. 19. The national figures have a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

“What the survey shows is that there is a heavy dose of taxpayer pragmatism when it comes to the prime minister’s residence,” Nanos Research founder Nik Nanos said in an interview.

“It’s pretty clear that only about one out of every three Canadians would support renovating 24 Sussex at a cost of $38-million.”

A report from iPolitics last month said restoration and repairs to the prime minister’s residence, including building a new annex with private quarters and a pool, could cost almost $38-million, according to documents obtained by the online news site.

Aaron Wudrick, federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, said security considerations at the prime minister’s residence would undoubtedly make it more expensive than the average home. But he said many Canadians question why it would cost up to 10 times as much as other large estates.

“I don’t think anyone denies the prime minister needs a secure, pleasant residence,” Mr. Wudrick said.

“I would suggest that they definitely look at the cheapest viable option, even if one of those options is tearing down the house entirely, or building a new residence in a different location.”

Support for replacing the property varies between different regions in Canada.

Quebec and Atlantic Canada feel less nostalgia for the residence, with 59.7 per cent of Quebeckers and 58.9 per cent of Atlantic Canadians wanting to see it torn down and replaced, the survey said.

In Ontario, only 48.6 per cent of people want it torn down, while in British Columbia the number is 49.5 per cent. In the Prairies, it’s 54 per cent, the same as the national average.

After his election last year, Mr. Trudeau declined to move into the decrepit mansion and, instead, set up at Rideau Cottage on the grounds of the Governor-General’s residence.

In 2008, the auditor-general found the building to be in poor shape – with cracked windows, aging wiring and deficient plumbing.

The 24 Sussex building, which was completed in 1868, was expropriated by the federal government in 1943. Seven years later, it was decided to use it as a home for the prime minister and Louis St. Laurent was the first to live there, starting in 1951.

“In one way, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is a victim of the inaction of previous prime ministers, who probably should have done some sort of renovation,” Mr. Nanos said.

The National Capital Commission, which is working on plans for the future of the 24 Sussex building, has said no decisions have been made.

A spokeswoman for the Prime Minister’s Office said the residence requires “significant repairs.”

“No decisions have been made regarding any proposals for renovations at 24 Sussex Drive. The government will provide an update in due course,” spokeswoman Andrée-Lyne Hallé wrote in an e-mail.

Mr. Trudeau spent a majority of his childhood at the residence when his father, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, was prime minister during the 1970s and early 1980s.

With a report from The Canadian Press

Follow Laura Stone on Twitter: @l_stone

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle33429790/

[HighwayStar]

Speaking of "Peace, Order and Renovations" (in the other thread)..... anyone know what is going on with this one? I've heard nothing for more than a year...

[bless-u]

It's a really tough call whether to demolish or renovate it. On one hand, it is a heritage building with great significance to the history of Canada; on the other, renovating a building like this can be a bottomless pit, cost-wise, considering all the special security needs and all.

If it were up to me, I would renovate it in typical standard and turn it into a museum without spending additional cost on security measures, and then relocate the PM residence to a new location with a thoroughly modern building that enjoys the benefits of all latest tech it requires. It'd still probably be cheaper than the current projection plus the expected extra costs in the final bills.

It may sound like a bad idea to a lot of people, I know that, but so was the idea of relocating the national capital from Upper Canada to Ottawa back then. We need to think outside the box rather than being limited by it, in this case, the house itself.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by bless-u

It's a really tough call whether to demolish or renovate it. One one hand, it is a heritage building with great significance to the history of Canada;

I question the historical significance of 24 Sussex. True it was built in 1866 but it didn't become official residence of the Prime Minister until 1951 (about 77 years ago). Also, given the few have actually seen much of the building, it is the address more than the architecture that is significant.

[bless-u]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I question the historical significance of 24 Sussex. True it was built in 1866 but it didn't become official residence of the Prime Minister until 1951 (about 77 years ago). Also, given the few have actually seen much of the building, it is the address more than the architecture that is significant.

I think 24 Sussex has its historical significance being the residence of our Prime Ministers even for a relatively brief period, though not as strong as other heritage buildings like the Parliament Building, for example. However, we shouldn't deny its special status. Demolition may be a bit drastic. It probably makes a stronger case for turning it into a museum. I believe in conservation. A 19th Century building in good condition is certainly worth keeping IMO.