Connect with us

Business

Canadians want to cut governor general’s budget

Published

1 minute read

By Nicolas Gagnon

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is calling Prime Minister Mark Carney to cut the governor general’s budget in the wake of new polling from Leger polling.

“Nearly half of Canadians believe the governor general’s budget is too big and should be reduced,” said Nicolas Gagnon, Quebec Director for the CTF. “When families are struggling with rising prices, it’s wrong to rubberstamp budget increases for a completely ceremonial office.”

According to its latest annual report, the governor general’s office spent $36 million in 2023-24.

The governor general receives a $378,000 salary, a taxpayer-funded clothing allowance, a lifetime pension of about $150,000 annually and a $200,000 annual expense account even after leaving office.

The Leger poll asked Canadians what should happen to the governor general’s budget and found that:

  • 49 per cent want to reduce the Governor General’s budget
  • 19 per cent would keep it the same
  • 13 per cent want to increase it
  • 19 per cent are unsure

Among those with an opinion, nearly 60 per cent of Canadians favour a reduction.

“The governor general already receives a massive salary, lives in a taxpayer-funded mansion, flies on private jets and still gets a six-figure annual expense account after retirement,” Gagnon said. “Canadians are sending the prime minister a clear message: enough is enough.”

To view the poll results, click here.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Banks

New executive order takes aim at debanking

Published on

From The Center Square

By 

Among the executive orders President Donald Trump signed Thursday was one instructing federal banking regulators to shed language from their guidance documents that the administration believes can lead to the debanking of people or institutions for political reasons.

“It is the policy of the United States that no American should be denied access to financial services because of their constitutionally or statutorily protected beliefs, affiliations, or political views, and to ensure that politicised or unlawful debanking is not used as a tool to inhibit such beliefs, affiliations, or political views,” the order reads.

Debanking individuals or institutions on the basis of political and personal views has become more visible in the U.S. since 2020, following similar reported trends in the U.K. and Europe where organizations like BankTrack and Bankwatch have monitored and reported on banks’ clients’ compliance with certain climate and human rights initiatives for decades.

Debanking occurs when a financial institution either closes or restricts an account or refuses to provide services to a potential client. Perhaps the most well-known, large-scale example occurred in 2022, when the Canadian government seized and froze the bank accounts of some participating in the Freedom Convoy, a convoy of thousands of truckers across Canada protesting the country’s vaccine mandates.

Financial institutions can and have also debanked clients independently of government involvement or direction. The order, however, focuses on federal reforms to prevent the government from encouraging or inciting debanking, as it claims it did in Operation Choke Point. The operation, which took place under the Obama administration, designated certain industries as high-risk for fraud and money laundering.

Republicans say the administration used it to target individuals, businesses and industries it opposed politically – like the gun industry – while Democrats say it was simply aimed at protecting consumers.

The Small Business Administration and other federal banking regulators are to “remove the use of reputation risk or equivalent concepts” from documents they use to “regulate or examine” financial institutions to avoid encouraging the debanking of clients for political or “unlawful” reasons.

The order also directs the SBA to ensure the reinstatement of clients’ accounts at financial institutions that debanked them for such reasons.

Thirty-two members of the State Financial Officers Foundation from 24 states signed onto a joint statement commending the executive order.

“President Trump’s executive action directly confronts this abuse of regulatory authority,” they said. “By reaffirming that banks must evaluate customers based on objective financial criteria, not political or religious views, his leadership marks a crucial step toward restoring viewpoint neutrality and putting an end to unlawful discrimination in our financial sector.”

Financial institutions can debank clients if those clients are found to be engaged in illegal activity.

Continue Reading

Business

Plan That Whole World Seemed To Hate Wasn’t Even Reviewed, EU Officials Now Admit

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Melissa O’Rourke

European Union (EU) officials are pushing forward with a major climate proposal, even though they apparently did not bother to study the policy’s costs or environmental impacts, according to Politico.

In July, the European Commission unveiled a sweeping plan to slash the EU’s carbon footprint by 90% by 2040, partly by allowing member states to use carbon credits earned by funding climate projects in developing countries to offset emissions. Despite the policy’s potentially massive economic and environmental ramifications, EU officials admitted they did not conduct an internal analysis of its impacts before proposing it, Politico reported.

The Commission admitted its climate department, DG CLIMA, held no documents analyzing the program’s cost or effectiveness when Politico requested internal assessments of the policy’s potential impacts.

Dear Readers:

As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.

Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.

Thank you!

The idea was spearheaded by Climate Commissioner Wopke Hoekstra, but climate department head Kurt Vandenberghe admitted in June that they were “not entirely prepared” for the move, Politico reported. Key details, including how much the credits will cost and whether taxpayers or companies will foot the bill, also remain unclear, according to the outlet.

U.S. officials have raised broader concerns about the EU’s climate agenda, warning that certain regulatory mandates could impact American businesses. Some have called on the Trump administration to examine the implications of the EU’s environmental policies as part of its trade negotiations.

Critics argue that carbon credit policies impose significant compliance costs on businesses, forcing them to participate in a system that many consider deeply flawed. Companies have spent millions on carbon offset projects that deliver little to no real emissions reductions, and in some cases, have exaggerated or outright fabricated their environmental impact.

“The cost of high-quality carbon credits that deliver sustainable and long-term mitigation outcomes can be very high,” the EU’s scientific advisory board on climate change warned about the carbon credits in June. “Purchasing such credits from abroad could therefore come at the expense of domestic investment opportunities.”

European Commission spokesperson Anna-Kaisa Itkon told the Daily Caller News Foundation that the Commission consulted various stakeholders on its carbon credit proposal and that an impact assessment would be conducted.

“Following extensive engagement on the part of the Commissioner with Member States, Members of the European Parliament and stakeholders since then, the Commission’s proposal to amend the European Climate Law includes provision to consider the possible inclusion of a limited amount of high-quality international credits in the design of the post-2030 policy framework,” Itkoen said.

Continue Reading

Trending

X