The News Rundown

PM launches design-and-build competition to ‘rehabilitate’ 24 Sussex Drive

A decision has finally been made about the fate of 24 Sussex. Since 1951 24 Sussex served as the home of the Prime Minister.
The decision has been made to restore the property to become the official residence again. The Prime Minister said 24 Sussex “[will] become, once again, a secure, accessible, and sustainable official residence and a working venue for Canada’s future prime ministers.”
A bid competition will be open for all Canadian construction companies. A winning proposal and team will be announced on July 1, 2027.
Media reporting was scant in terms of the cost expected for the renovations. The final plan will determine the bill but in 2021 the National Capital Commission wrote a report that suggested it would cost $36.6m to restore the property. In 2008 the renovations at the time would have been in and around the $10m range.
Over time the building has had infestations of rats, dangerous asbestos, lead, and mould.
In 2024 the National Capital Commission gutted the house also removing the electrical and plumbing, cleared the infestation, and installed new heat pumps.
Companies will be invited to send in bids and the winning proposal will be chosen.
Next, the Rideau Hall Foundation will lead a non-partisan fundraising campaign to cover the entire cost of the project - no one donor will be allowed to contribute more than 10% of the cost.
In announcing the renovation, Carney thanked Prime Ministers Stephen Harper and Jean Chretien for advocating for the renovation of 24 Sussex and added that Prime Minister’s Clark, Campbell, Martin, Trudeau, and the wife of Mulroney, Mila, expressed support for the plan.
Carney also stated that he will not live at 24 Sussex while he is Prime Minister. He said, “24 Sussex Drive is more than a residence. It's greater than a mere backdrop to history. It's a symbol of the public office, of the head of our federal government and of the democratic traditions that office represents.”
24 Sussex had become a game of political avoidance. Not one Prime Minister wanted to be seen as putting forward money to fix a mansion for themselves.
In the past there had been comments about Pierre Trudeau’s sauna or the Mulroney’s closet but to let the house degrade to the point rats were inhabiting the walls wreaks of avoidance.
CBC News was in this week with a story on this exact issue.
Aaron Wherry writing compared the lack of any renovations done in recent times to the massive re-modelling of the White House south of the border saying that “Canadians might take justifiable pride in a political culture that left successive prime ministers unwilling to risk installing central air conditioning in the official residence.”
Wherry also highlighted the Bev Oda $16 orange juice scandal which was largely a manufactory of the media of the day.
In the CBC’s view the sooner the fate of 24 Sussex is answered, the sooner Canadians will be able to worry about more important matters!
What this leaves out though is the massive angle of Canadian Heritage.
The house is not only a residence, it’s a working space, and a place where meetings and visiting dignitaries get hosted.
It itself is a storied building and knocking it down would have raised many questions about what Canada stood for in terms of protecting our history.
The biggest problem going forward that the media continues to largely ignore for the Prime Minister himself is that of influence, specifically around the financing of big projects.
We know the when Carney lead Brookfield capital he had investments globally and in this country to look after. He has set up multiple ethics screens (time will tell if they’re solid) and has recused himself from upwards of 17 government decisions so far.
The Liberals on this file need to be watched like a hawk. It was a pay for access scheme under Justin Trudeau that was all but ignored by the media that was a harbinger of his downfall with young voters.
When considering 24 Sussex the government claims the donation process will be transparent and the aforementioned 10% limit will help avoid potential conflicts.
Duff Conacher, co-founder of Democracy Watch, said the fundraising proposal violates federal ethics law and the criminal code, which prohibit government officials from accepting benefits from anyone who is involved with the government.
Toon Dreessen, president of Architects DCA in Ottawa, said the fundraising idea unnecessarily raises a number of potential ethical issues, saying, “This is an important project and an official residence. It should be funded and funded properly.”
The upshot through all of this is that restoring 24 Sussex as a national asset has merit when it comes to diplomacy, heritage, and functionality for the Prime Minister.
When people see the estimated multi-millions of dollars involved though eyebrows will be raised.
Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre said that restoring 24 Sussex is “the furthest thing from [his] mind.”
Many Canadians may indeed feel similarly but this is a project that we’ve talked about before on Western Context and compared to the spending scandals around Harrington Lake and ballooning electricity bills at 24 Sussex there is an argument to be made to conservative Canadian history and heritage.
Why? Over the last decade the government took part in many acts that did the exact opposite.
Barring a scandal where the federal government ends up taking on the bill for the project entirely, this is something that should be covered by the media without bias and sensationalism and without making needless comparisons to our friends south of the border.
Supplementals:

The B.C. government is halting plans on a binding referendum that would see residents in Victoria and Saanich, B.C., vote on whether they want to amalgamate their municipalities.
Last year, the Victoria-Saanich Citizens’ Assembly recommended a merger of the two municipalities — the largest of the 13 in the Capital Regional District (CRD) — and their respective councils expressed support for a binding vote in this year’s elections to determine if it were to happen.
But in April, the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs said no vote could take place until significantly more work had been done on the proposal and the public had a stronger sense of what a combined municipality would look like.
“This includes detailed analysis by Saanich and Victoria of financial, governance and service impacts of amalgamation, along with provincial consultation with local First Nations,” the ministry wrote.
Discussion of amalgamation in Greater Victoria has existed nearly as long as the city itself, with many in the City of Victoria itself arguing that they pay a disproportionate share of the commercial, entertainment and policing costs that residents in the surrounding 12 municipalities benefit from.
In 2014, eight CRD municipalities held non-binding referendums about supporting a study of amalgamation or the concept in general. Seven of them voted in favour — Oak Bay being the only one against the concept — but the B.C. Liberal government of the day essentially ignored the idea.
In the 2018 municipal elections, Saanich and Victoria residents voted in favour of spending up to $250,000 for a citizens' assembly to directly explore the idea of amalgamation between the two municipalities, but for various reasons it didn’t take place until 2024.
Over eight months, the 48-member panel examined governance, housing, transportation, policing, climate resilience and municipal services before recommending the two municipalities amalgamate.
While the assembly recommended amalgamation in April 2025, no major work had been put into an information campaign or analysis of what amalgamation would look like prior to the province’s letter, leaving next steps in a state of limbo.
While Victoria and Saanich politicians have mostly remained neutral on the issue, many have expressed support for having a vote to definitively decide the long-standing question one way or the other.
At their meeting on Monday, most Saanich councillors criticized the provincial government for adding new steps, saying the consultation and financial studies could have happened after a binding referendum.
“I think it disrespects our public, I think it disrespects this council. Having said that, we are where we are,” said Coun. Susan Brice.
Coun. Zac de Vries said: “To push this out even further to 2030 would be a 12-year gap between questions on a ballot. But at the same time, [this vote] allows us to check the temperature. If there is a clear direction in the direction of yes, in this case, I think it would be incumbent on the incoming councils to push the province. It would be in their court," he added.
Saanich Mayor Dean Murdock, on the same day his council passed a motion to have a non-binding referendum instead said: “It was disappointing and frustrating to hear we can’t have a binding referendum.”
Meanwhile, Victoria council considered the issue at their meeting this Thursday, with Mayor Marianne Alto recommending a non-binding question — “Do you support Saanich and Victoria becoming one municipality?” — on October’s ballot. Council approved the question, but also confirmed the city will not undertake a public information campaign beyond the material already produced through the Victoria-Saanich Citizens’ Assembly.
And while Alto said she understood the position of the province, the staff report by the city indicated some surprise: “While it is within the minister’s powers to follow an alternative restructure process, there was no indication from the Province until after the Assembly process concluded that there were any issues or insufficiencies.”
October's questions in Saanich and Victoria will also be tough to act on, given that we don't know what each council is going to look like, as new members may be elected who have different agendas to the current ones. Alto looks to be staying on as mayor in Victoria, while Murdock will likely move on from being Saanich's mayor.
When the BC Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs stepped in to deny a legally binding referendum, mainstream media framed it as a standard bureaucratic caution. However, political watchdogs offer a different interpretation of the province's motives.
The BC NDP government is essentially used the "lack of financial clarity" as a convenient political shield. By demanding extensive technical evaluations and First Nations consultations before approving a binding vote, the province effectively kicked a highly divisive and expensive political hot potato back down to the municipal level right before provincial electoral cycles.
The untold angle, is that taxpayers are now funding a non-binding October 2026 ballot question that has no legal standing. Critics argue that forcing a vote on an undefined merger concept forces citizens to vote blindly on sentiment rather than a concrete plan. Municipal critics, including Victoria City Councillor Jeremy Caradonna, who was not highlighted in most stories about the topic, pointed out that the entire multi-year assembly process was allowed to conclude and issue its report without a formal financial analysis or risk assessment.
Skeptics argue that regional corporate media outlets acted more like public relations arms for pro-merger lobby groups, such as Amalgamation Yes, rather than conducting objective, investigative journalism. The CBC article on the story featured quotes from Trevor Barry, president of Amalgamation Yes, with no opposing viewpoints.
Mainstream reporting also gave outsized coverage to the theoretical benefits of amalgamation—such as unified transportation grids and shared police/fire networks—while failing to platform community-led concerns regarding the loss of localized democratic access.
Coverage also routinely downplayed the logistical nightmare of merging two fundamentally different political realities: Victoria’s highly urbanized, commercial core and Saanich's sprawling, eco-sensitive suburban and rural agricultural protections.
Whether you're for or against amalgamation, it's clear that the media needs to do a better job of covering the angles so that people can go into October's vote with informed opinions on what exactly is going on, and how our municipal and provincial governments have kicked this can down the road for nearly a decade to this point, with no end in sight.
Supplementals:

https://www.ctvnews.ca/vancouver/vancouver-island/article/victoria-joins-saanich-in-approving-non-binding-amalgamation-question-for-october-ballot/

Alberta premier criticizes Calgary Stampede noise bylaw: ‘Fun police have struck’

The fun police have come to Calgary with the Stampede just days away. What started as a series of new restrictions where outdoor concerts and events must end by midnight with cool-down music permissible until 12:30am has resulted in a huge back and forth between the city and the province.
Bass and volume limits are 5 decibels lower than last year.
Premier Danielle Smith said, “Looks like the fun police have struck again in Calgary, this time targeting the Calgary Stampede music scene.”
Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre who will be at the stampede called out “city hall gate keepers” saying, “Millions flock to the Stampede because IT IS FUN to stay up late and listen to loud music. That brings nearly a billion dollars in tourism and excitement for the Greatest Outdoor Show on Earth.”
Before the back and forth on the rules could begin the rules claimed a victim.
The Country Thunder Alberta music show announced the cancellation of the event with just 2 days to go prior to the event.
The group cited “city created safety and operational barriers.”
Executive Director Kim Blevins of the group said, “we do not take this decision lightly. Our fans travel from across the country to be part of this experience and we owe them an event they can enjoy fully.”
A lot of people see just the loudness discussion as the main deal here but there were other concerns as well.
Traffic reduction of Ninth Avenue and additional construction in the area.
Loss of key site infrastructure required for functional festival operations
A last minute installation of a water line bypass pipe
Initially mayor Jeremy Farkas chalked the discussion up to being disingenuous because according to the city, Country Thunder was not part of the bylaw discussions about the stampede offsite festivals.
Noise bylaw or not, one event was already cancelled.
The discussion though ended with a back and forth at city hall with the ability to undo these bylaw changes.
A motion was tabled that would’ve allowed events to run until 1am on weeknights but it was defeated.
While Country Thunder is no longer happening and it seems as though the organizers had a list of other grievances, as of Friday there is a new deal to let the fun continue at the Stampede.
The Cowboys tent will end live concerts at midnight on all 11 days of Stampede. Farkas claims that the city had been reviewing an exception for the cowboys tent going back to May.
Noise levels will remain at the previous year’s 75 decibels but bass levels have been reduced slightly.
Outdoor speakers will be able to be played at a reduced volume and bass until 1:30am.
In addition to the Cowboys tent, Badlands, home electronic dance music and Wildhorse will get the same deal.
Mainstream media throughout the week framed this as a battle between Danielle Smith and Jeremy Farkas. The reality though is that when looking at this story Farkas and the current city council is a lot more permissive than the group inhabiting city hall last year.
A lot of the reporting didn’t go into the differences between the Cowboys tent and Country Thunder Alberta - this of course does a disservice to those reading and creates a narrative that Farkas is being unreasonable.
The reality though is that while the initial stories banked on sensationalism and anger, there was a solution in the end that broke too late on Friday to be brought into the weekend’s news.
Supplementals:

Firing Line

Critics blast government plan to 'bail out' sagging condo sector in B.C.

B.C. is facing a glut of empty condos. Thousands of Metro Vancouver units are sitting empty and some developers are facing insolvency.
Now, some housing experts are questioning a plan by the federal and provincial governments to buy some of those vacant units and turn them into affordable housing. They say it amounts to a bailout for developers who refuse to lower prices to reflect a sluggish real estate market.
Recent data from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation shows that as of last month, there were 4,376 completed condos sitting empty in Metro Vancouver, a 76 per cent increase from the year before.
Andy Yan, an urban planner and director of Simon Fraser University's City Program, has crunched the numbers, with his analysis showing that a third of all condos without owners in Metro Vancouver cost over $1 million. He questions how deep a discount the governments can get to make those units truly affordable.
Yan has a lot of questions about the plan by Prime Minister Mark Carney and B.C. Premier David Eby to buy vacant condos in "priority growth areas" and turn them into affordable housing. The federal housing ministry has not yet provided a cost estimate for the program and a spokesperson said that will be worked out in the coming weeks.
Yan asks the question on everyone's minds: "How much of this is really a way of helping out the industry versus, I think, a bailout in terms of bad business decisions by some of these developers?"
The plan sparked immediate, intense public and political backlash, with critics, housing analysts, and opposition parties slamming the move as an expensive, taxpayer-funded bailout designed to rescue private real estate developers and lenders who made bad speculative bets during a market downturn.
Housing analysts point out that real estate developers built high-priced, small units ("shoebox condos") betting that prices would climb indefinitely. With interest rates high and demand weak, critics argue developers should be forced to drop their prices or enter receivership, rather than having the state absorb their commercial risk.
B.C. Conservative MLA John Rustad said the government's over-regulation of the housing market has added costs for developers, contributing to high prices: "Only government can tax and regulate an industry into a crisis and then give them a bailout. It's absolutely ludicrous," he said.
B.C. Green Party Leader Emily Lowan also criticized the plan, calling it a corporate bait and switch. Lowan said while it's good the government is buying unsold condos to make them affordable housing, it doesn't fix the real issue - that years of government austerity on housing have made it difficult to actually build affordably.
Lowan said: "The B.C. NDP axed their $3-billion affordable housing program and left thousands of low-income units half-built," with the new plan giving a "handout to the corporations who profit off the housing crisis."
Critics like Lowan argue the government is now starving non-profit, purpose-built rental providers while choosing to overspend on private market bailouts.
Carney said Thursday the government will use the "right financial mechanisms" and take condos that would otherwise sit empty "potentially for another couple of years" and convert them into affordable housing. He did not say if the government plans to buy up units in bulk at below market value.
Speaking in Ottawa on Thursday, Carney said that under the program he laid out in Vancouver last week, the government would "potentially" put up 10 per cent of roughly $1.45 billion in total spending to convert some 2,200 empty units into rent-to-own homes, with the B.C. government footing the rest of the bill.
Eby said the program is recognizing that "there is existing housing stock available that's been built, that people would love to move into, they would love to make it their first home to buy, but they just can't afford it."
Carney and Eby also announced Thursday a $3-billion fund, split equally between Ottawa and B.C., to be used over the next 10 years to build housing-enabling infrastructure and lower the fees developers pay to municipalities.
Carney said by lowering development cost charges for multi-unit housing by up to 50 per cent, builders could save up to $40,000 per unit, and governments would fund infrastructure such as water systems, wastewater systems and local roads.
Chris Atchison, the head of the B.C. Construction Association, said this funding can give builders much-needed certainty, which he argues will create more housing stock. He said the money gives the sector "confidence that it can go forward with planning and building," amid workforce and supply-chain issues.
On the other hand, Jill Atkey, the head of the B.C. Non-Profit Housing Association, slammed the B.C. government for the plan to help developers — just months after it axed the Community Housing Fund, a decision she said put thousands of affordable rental units in jeopardy: "To spend public dollars to bail out the condo market or the private development sector, I think frankly is a misuse of public funds."
The prime minister had said last week that he's "leveraging financial tools" to increase the housing supply, while Opposition leader Pierre Poilievre later skewered the scheme as "bailout" for big developers and "a transfer of wealth from the have-nots to the have-yachts."
Poilievre and other opponents also point out that by introducing the government as a guaranteed bulk-buyer, the initiative stops housing prices from naturally correcting to a level everyday Canadians can actually afford.
Carney has already admitted his government did a "poor job" rolling out the program, after the huge backlash. Carney attempted to shift responsibility by emphasizing that the B.C. provincial government conceptualized the plan and that "no developer asked for this directly".
However, Independent journalists have pointed to a private fundraiser held by Carney in Vancouver attended by top B.C. developers and that the policy effectively bails out the private real estate community's bad speculative bets using taxpayer funds, establishing a dangerous precedent that the state will absorb corporate risk.
Hours after Carney’s comments, B.C. Premier David Eby scrambled to defend his position, stating that the federal government was simply "enthusiastic about announcing this before all the details were out". Eby went so far as to claim "we don’t have to do it", showing how quickly the province is trying to distance itself from its own proposal due to voter anger.
Eby said: “If people hate it, that’s OK, we don’t have to do it. But I actually think that ultimately, we'll be buying below the cost of construction, no developers will be profiting from us and it'll give people an opportunity to buy a home that would otherwise not have it.”
It's clear more than ever that the governments in Canada, whether the Carney Liberals in Ottawa or the NDP like BC's David Eby, have signalled with their policies that real estate in Canada is too big to fail. While lowering immigration exposed the problems in the real estate industry, it's clear that a bailout was not anyone's preferred solution to the problem. The fact that the media has been pasting statements from the two governments without any follow up analysis shows that the bought and paid for mainstream media is not eager to explore this topic in depth.
Supplementals:

Quote of the Week

“If people hate it, that’s OK, we don’t have to do it. But I actually think that ultimately, we'll be buying below the cost of construction, no developers will be profiting from us and it'll give people an opportunity to buy a home that would otherwise not have it.” - BC Premier David Eby on the condo bailout

Word of the Week

Avoidance - the action of keeping away from or not doing something

How to Find Us

Westerncontext.ca

westerncontext.ca/subscribe

westerncontext.ca/support

x.com/westerncontext

facebook.com/westerncontext

Show Data

Episode Title: Carney’s Condos
Teaser: Carney makes a plan to renovate 24 Sussex Drive, BC stops an amalgamation vote in Victoria, and a noise bylaw threatens fun at the Calgary Stampede. Also, Carney and Eby give a bailout to real estate developers.
Production Code: WC-474-2026-06-27
Recorded Date: June 27, 2026
Release Date: June 28, 2026
Duration: 1:08:40
Edit Notes: None

Podcast Summary Notes

Duration: XX:XX