Residence – mackaycartoons

Saturday June 27, 2026

June 27, 2026 by Graeme MacKay

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Saturday June 27, 2026

Published in The Toronto Star. Posted to Reddit.

From Past to Future: Revitalizing 24 Sussex Drive

April 21, 2026

In a nation as diverse and forward-thinking as Canada, the debate surrounding 24 Sussex Drive, the official residence of the Prime Minister, is more than just a matter of bricks and mortar. It represents a deeper dialogue about heritage, functionality, and national identity. Prime Minister Mark Carney’s initiative to address this issue through a national design competition and fundraising campaign is both timely and commendable.

News: Ottawa launching competition to find firm to rebuild 24 Sussex

September 1, 2023

For a G7 country, the absence of a functional and symbolic residence for its democratically-elected leader is indeed an anomaly. Critics argue about the necessity and funding of such a project; however, it’s important to note the contrast with the residence provided for the Leader of the Official Opposition. Pierre Poilievre, who currently enjoys this privilege, often criticizes the need for a prime ministerial residence, highlighting a certain hypocrisy in his stance.

Carney’s approach is not unprecedented. Historical examples demonstrate that private and public fundraising efforts for official residences are common and not indicative of a failed state:

White House, USA: The White House Historical Association has long engaged in fundraising to conserve and furnish this iconic residence, ensuring it remains both a functional home and a symbol of national history.
Windsor Castle, UK: After the 1992 fire, restoration was funded through insurance, public funds, and private donations. This mixed funding model allowed for a successful restoration without burdening taxpayers excessively.
Prince’s Palace of Monaco: The princely household and affiliated foundations regularly support restorations via private philanthropy and foundation grants, indicating a successful blend of public and private funding.

April 8, 2023

Carney’s fundraising approach ensures that 24 Sussex will become more than just a residence. By involving Canadians in the process, it transforms into a collective national endeavour, promising to be both a private home for the leader and a public space celebrating Canada’s executive branch, akin to the ongoing restoration of the legislative buildings on Parliament Hill.

News: Here’s what the run-down 24 Sussex looks like inside

February 6, 2018

The national design competition opens up possibilities for innovation, allowing architects and citizens alike to weigh in on whether renovation or a rebuild is the best path forward. This exploration reflects our national values of inclusivity and creativity, ensuring that the final decision resonates with the public.

Mark Carney’s commitment to resolving the future of 24 Sussex Drive is a step towards preserving history while embracing a future that reflects Canada’s values and aspirations. It’s an opportunity to create a space that honours our past while inspiring future generations, making it truly a residence of the people.

Tuesday April 21, 2026

April 21, 2026 by Graeme MacKay

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Tuesday April 21, 2026

Jet-Setting Mishap: Ford’s High-Flying Folly

April 18, 2026

In recent headlines, the Ontario government’s hasty decision to purchase a $28.9 million private jet for Premier Doug Ford has sparked controversy and rapid reversal. This quick flip-flop stands in stark contrast to the prolonged debate over renovating the Prime Minister’s residence at 24 Sussex Drive—a decision mired in public scrutiny and indecision despite being necessary and arguably more fiscally prudent.

As reported by CBC and the Toronto Star, the Ontario government bought a Bombardier Challenger 650 for Ford’s travel needs, justifying it as essential for economic missions and countering U.S. tariffs. However, this decision was made with little to no public consultation or debate. Public backlash was immediate, with critics labeling it a “gravy plane” and highlighting its tone-deafness amidst rising living costs and fiscal constraints.

News: Doug Ford flip-flops, plans to sell recently purchased $28.9-million jet amid public fury

September 1, 2023

Opposition leaders and commentators rightly questioned the transparency and rationale behind such an expense. The rapid decision to sell the jet underscores the lack of foresight and critical evaluation—a knee-jerk purchase based on the assumption that Ontarians would quietly acquiesce.

Contrast this with the torturous debate over 24 Sussex Drive. The residence of Canada’s Prime Minister has long required repairs, but discussions have dragged on due to fears of public criticism over costs. This hesitation persists despite clear necessity; investing in the residence is not only about preserving a historic building but also ensuring the functionality and security of the Prime Minister’s home.

Here lies the irony: a prudent investment in national heritage and operational necessity is stalled by anticipated outrage, while a frivolous jet purchase proceeded swiftly, only to be undone by actual public fury.

Opinion: Memo to the PM: Fix 24 Sussex now

April 8, 2023

The juxtaposition of these two scenarios reveals much about political decision-making. It highlights a reactive rather than proactive approach—acting hastily on a luxury while dithering over a necessity. The Ontario jet saga illustrates the pitfalls of misjudging public priorities and the importance of transparency and public engagement.

Had the jet purchase been subject to the same rigorous debate as 24 Sussex, perhaps taxpayer money would have been better allocated. As noted by readers and critics, transparency in government spending is crucial, and decisions should reflect public interest, not personal luxury.

Investments in public assets, whether a prime minister’s residence or provincial travel capabilities, require thoughtful deliberation and public input. The public deserves transparency and accountability in how their money is spent. As governments navigate these decisions, the lessons from the jet and the residence should guide a more balanced, transparent, and prudent approach to governance.

In the end, it’s about making decisions that serve the public good, not just the whims of those in power.

Friday September 1, 2023

September 1, 2023 by Graeme MacKay

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday September 1, 2023

Building a New Official Residence for Canada’s Prime Minister

April 8, 2023

The current state of the prime minister’s official residence, 24 Sussex Drive, leaves much to be desired. It is no secret that the house is in desperate need of repairs and renovations, making it uninhabitable. However, while plans are being considered for a new official residence, there is an interesting twist to this story.

Recent polls have shown a surge in support for the Conservative party, with Pierre Poilievre emerging as a potential future occupant of the prime minister’s residence. It is quite ironic that Poilievre, who has expressed little interest in the refurbishment or replacement of the official residence, could find himself residing in a place that requires a gatekeeper.

News: Security concerns might finally solve the 24 Sussex conundrum

February 6, 2018

Poilievre has made it clear that his priorities lie elsewhere, and he envisions a more basic and secure residence for the prime minister. He emphasizes the need for practicality and the ability to receive dignitaries while ensuring the utmost security. Little did he know that a gatekeeper might be necessary for a residence that requires such extensive renovations and repairs.

As the discussions about the future of the prime minister’s residence continue, it is essential to consider the aspirations of potential future occupants like Poilievre. While he may not prioritize the refurbishment, his design input could greatly influence the architecture and functionality of the new residence, from the living quarters to formal reception areas and, ironically, the gatekeeper’s role in ensuring security.

News: 24 Sussex wasn’t always a rat-infested death trap

August 9, 2023

It is intriguing to think about the prospect of Poilievre residing in a residence that he initially deemed unimportant. Perhaps this would provide him with a unique perspective and a deeper understanding of the challenges faced by the prime minister and their need for a suitable and secure place to live and work.

As the government explores options for the future of the prime minister’s residence, including potential new locations or a complete rebuild, it is crucial to take into account the desires and input of potential occupants like Poilievre. After all, a residence worthy of Canada’s prime minister should accommodate the needs and preferences of its future residents, including the ironic necessity of a gatekeeper. (AI)

Tuesday February 6, 2018

February 5, 2018 by Graeme MacKay

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Tuesday February 6, 2018

Drop the politics and fix 24 Sussex Drive

Few things better symbolize the stupid, counterproductive, hyperpartisan atmosphere that pervades Canada’s federal political scene than the on-again, off-again debate over what to do with 24 Sussex Drive.

It’s not new. The tempest in a teapot over investing in the residence intended to house the leader of the country has been blowing hot and cold for years.

Everyone agrees, this mansion is a dump. It has asbestos. Heating and cooling systems are out of date. While no national leader wants to live there, swarms of mice do. It has literally been dubbed unfit for human habitation by architectural and safety experts. Most recent estimates suggest Sussex needs $10 million in renovations and upgrades. They could have been done for much less in years past, but because no one had the guts to make the commitment, the situation has gone from bad to worse.

And even in its current unoccupied state, it’s costing taxpayers money. Between November 2015 and March 2016, it cost $180,000 to keep it heated, lit up and clear of snow. The hydro bills alone for that five-month period weighed in at $38,881. And the National Capital Commission, in charge of the residence, has let something like $133,000 in contracts related to the house since 2016.

Why? Because no political leader wants to be seen as feathering his or her own nest by investing the necessary money to make Sussex safe and respectable. The opposition would have a field day, which they did when Brian Mulroney raised the prospect of improvements. Paul Martin had the same experience. Kim Campbell said she wouldn’t touch the subject with a pole.

Justin Trudeau is much the same. But he’s trying, to his credit, to get an independent overseer to take charge and make non-partisan decisions in the best interest of preserving the monument. Even that effort is politically risky. The NDP has agreed to not go all-partisan on the matter. The PCs did too, and then broke that pledge by insisting they want something from the government in return for approving the plan.

In the scheme of things, the fate of Sussex is a trifle. But think about what our inability to maintain and preserve the official residence says about Canada. Can you picture the Americans devolving into partisan sniping over ensuring The White House is maintained?

Sussex may not be especially historic. It was built as a lumber baron’s home in 1868, and didn’t start serving as the official residence until the early ’50s. But since then, a dozen or so prime ministers have lived there. It is, after all, the official residence for Canada’s top elected leader. It’s a piece of living, if not healthy at the moment, history.

If there is collective national will, and we would argue there is, all three parties should agree to allow the National Capital Commission to make the necessary investment. It’s time to put this small but telling embarrassment to bed once and for all. (Source: Hamilton Spectator)

Monday September 26, 2016

September 25, 2016 by Graeme MacKay

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Monday September 26, 2016

Encroaching Monster Homes

Communities change whether we like it or not. The question of whether they change for better or worse is a matter of opinion and interpretation.

Meanwhile, growing pains are inevitable no matter how a community evolves. Sometimes, unchecked sprawl outward can lead to unaffordable costs for services in future. Sometimes, unplanned growth upward can lead to inner city problems – anything from increased traffic to a lack of sunlight. Sometimes infill projects are simply out of place.

So there’s nothing wrong with considered management of change and thoughtful care in planning and redevelopment.

But too many homeowners are needlessly concerned with sameness in their communities. And too many are unwilling to accept change as inevitable.

Just because a community is built with similar homes, on identical lots with homogenous landscaping, doesn’t mean it has to stay that way.

So the current debate in places such as Ancaster about the appropriateness of so-called “monster” homes in already well-to-do neighbourhoods may be a useful exercise, but residents and the city will need to remind themselves that the status quo will never be acceptable.

After all, the lots in that area are already huge by most people’s standards, and the existing houses are not exactly small, no matter how you measure it.

Humanity’s desire for something ever bigger, ever better is unlikely to be quelled by upset neighbours, well-meaning council representatives or dialogue, however useful, at a town-hall meeting.

Neither are such forces restricted to places like Ancaster. Downtown Hamilton, indeed downtowns everywhere, are facing a massive influx of new residents with new ideas and new needs.

Gentrification has somehow become a dirty word, but in fact it is neither bad nor good. It simply is inevitable. We can do our best as community builders to accommodate social housing, create mixed-use communities, and make neighbourhoods welcoming to everyone, but we cannot stop those who can afford it from fixing up old houses and making them unaffordable for low-income renters.

We can restrict heights, plan for careful placement and perhaps even design of high-rise towers, not stop condominiums from being built downtown. Indeed, such intensification is necessary if we are to continue to keep taxes affordable.

Hamilton, as much and probably more than most cities in the current era, is facing tumultuous change which many oppose simply because it is change. If Hamilton is to continue to thrive as a city and ride the current wave of prosperity that is upon us, we must all embrace change – and embrace the future. (Source: Hamilton Spectator Editorial)