This week we saw testimony in front of the Government Operations committee for the non-story about the decision by Global Affairs to sell the current residence for the Canadian consul general in New York and purchase a condo in another building, for substantially less money—possibly the first time in Canadian history that making a profit of $4 million is somehow considered a “scandal” in the eyes of the opposition. Nevertheless, the Conservatives have tried their hardest rage-farm over this particular exercise, using the worst possible excuses for why the government needs to be performatively cheap. Hairshirt parsimony is already a problem in this country, but doing it for the sake of theatre makes it all the worse.

“Starving Canadians who are relying on food banks who would love to have a real property investment in New York with these types of features,” Conservative MP Larry Brock thundered at civil servants before the committee, complaining about the macauba stone floors in the entryway, or the jewed onyx finish described in the powder room. “Do you see the disconnect between what the government is doing and the reality on the Canadian streets?”

Ah, yes, the “we can’t let anyone have anything nice because someone in Canada is starving” logic. This kind of performative frugality, which doesn’t actually help anyone using a food bank in this country, is one of the reasons why successive governments have allowed 24 Sussex to decay, or why the prime minister’s official plane was allowed to get so old that it actually was barred from certain countries’ airports because its avionics could no longer be updated to meet their required standards, or why Centre Block itself was allowed to reach the point of near system-collapse before parliamentarians finally had to bite the bullet and agree to a plan that would see the building evacuated and renovated for at least a ten-year stretch (but is probably going to be a minimum of fifteen at this rate). There has always been a reason not to do the necessary things for public properties, because it was always tagged as though it would be for the personal benefit of the person occupying the official residence or aircraft as the case may be.

With the Manhattan properties, the existing residence was no longer up to code, particularly around issues of accessibility, and it would have required millions of dollars in renovations. As well, there were concerns around inadequate separation between the public and private spaces in the residence—because entertaining is a large part of what it is used for beyond just housing the consul general—and there were increasing restrictions from the building as to what kinds of events could be held there. Those were all reasons in favour of finding a new property, and Global Affairs went looking for one to meet these criteria, and of all the properties they assessed, this $9 million condo met those needs, had lower ongoing costs. Plus, as previously stated, with the old residence on the market for $13 million, everyone is coming out ahead on this. But because a New York paper wrote up how “lavish” the new residence sounds because they believed King Charles III was purchasing it for himself (because they don’t understand what “in right of Canada” means), the Conservatives got all hot and bothered by it, and media outlets obliged by making it sound somehow improper.

I do find it somewhat interesting that absolutely none of these Conservative MPs who are complaining that this diplomatic residence in Manhattan is exactly showcasing how performatively frugal they are because there are Canadians using food banks. How many of them are staying at the Chateau Laurier for the three or four nights a week that they are in Ottawa? How many of them are staying there during these “emergency” committee hearings? How many of them have apartments in the buildings in Centretown that are considered “luxury”? If they were really concerned about the disconnect between Canadians using food banks, shouldn’t there be an edict that they can’t live in close proximity to the Hill, but rather that they should find a bedsit somewhere in the outer suburbs like Stittsville or Kanata? And that they have to take the bus, because the carbon levy is supposedly too punishing for these “ordinary Canadians”? Their per diems? Axe them in favour of brown-bag lunches and impose an ODSP-style food budget limit on them. Most of all, they should be forbidden from flying back to their ridings every weekend, because Canadians are going to food banks and they certainly can’t fly across the country every weekend.

Of course, this would be entirely absurd. I do generally believe that MPs are on the whole underpaid, but you see where that kind of resentment-based logic starts to lead if you let it take root. I would even add that I see value in the leader of the opposition having an official residence (not the least of which is because Stornoway is an important historic property and this way it remains in use in the National Capital Commission’s portfolio), even if it makes it hard for any of the leader of the opposition to complain about the government getting nice things. But again, per the same logic, their leader living in a nineteen-room mansion with a cook and driver seems to be just as triggering to those Canadians as the official residence for the consul general.

It would be helpful overall if we stopped playing this hairshirt parsimony game in Canadian politics, coming either from politicians or the media (who are even worse in most cases), because there is a cost to being cheap all the time. It creates problems in the medium to long-term, and if we’re talking about a diplomatic residence, it impacts the image we project to the world when we entertain political leaders, business leaders, or notable figures who want to engage with Canada. The issue of this residence never should have become a news story, and the Conservatives trying to rage-farm over it should take a look in the mirror, lest they invite themselves to become the next targets of these kinds of tactics, to the detriment of all Canadian politicians present and future.