I just know the optics like this are not good despite potential logical reasons for doing so. On one side, the logical reason is that there is something wrong with the old office and they chose a dumb narrative, ignoring the potential greater cost of not moving offices. On the other end, maybe they are scheming with a local contractor to make an overly expensive office where certain items are marked up higher to land in the pockets of decision makers. Or it could just be that tax funded news corp is salty that tax funded CPP has a bigger office and they wanted a fancy office too

I had some roommates in Canadian government and they also had some office migration drama. The reality is there are a lot of full of themselves decision makers who have a ton of blinders on due to their own arrogance and make bad decisions. It seems to be the rule and not the exception. This is true for any large org, not just government. I guess i just dont like the comparison of paying for an office vs paying out organizational overhead. Its an apples to oranges comparison that knee-jerks me into, “well that’s obviously some kind of think tank propaganda that has their own agenda and using that talking point to distract us from the real reason they dont like that office”