Connect with us

National

Governor General gets $11,200 raise in 2024, third pay bump in three years

Published

4 minute read

News release from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation

Author: Franco Terrazzano

The Governor General’s salary has increased by $60,000, or 20 per cent, since 2019.

Governor General Mary Simon received a $11,200 raise in 2024, her third pay bump since being appointed to the role in 2021, driving her salary for this year up to $362,800.

“Canadians are struggling to afford a jug of milk or a package of ground beef, so the government shouldn’t be rubberstamping another raise for the governor general,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director. “Can the government show Canadians how they’re getting more value, because the governor general’s paycheque just went up a thousand dollars a month.”

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation confirmed Simon’s salary and latest raise with the Privy Council Office.

“For 2024, the Governor General’s salary, which is determined in accordance with the provisions of the Governor General’s Act … is $362,800,” a PCO spokesman told the CTF.

The Governor General’s salary has increased by $60,000, or 20 per cent, since 2019. Meanwhile, the average annual salary among full-time workers is less than $70,000, according to Statistics Canada data.

Table: Annual Governor General salary, per PCO data

Year

GG salary

2024

$362,800

2023

$351,600

2022

$342,100

2021

$328,700

2020

$310,100

2019

$302,800

On top of the $362,800 annual salary, the governor general receives a range of lavish perks, including a taxpayer-funded mansion, a platinum pension, a generous retirement allowance, a clothing budget, paid dry cleaning services and travel expenses.

Former governors general are also eligible for a full pension, of about $150,000 a year, regardless of how long they serve in office.

Even though Simon’s predecessor, Julie Payette, served in the role for a little more than three years, she will receive an estimated $4.8 million if she collects her pension till the age of 90.

The CTF estimates that Canada’s five living former governors general will receive more than $18 million if they continue to collect their pensions till the age of 90.

Former governors general can also expense taxpayers up to $206,000 annually for the rest of their lives, continuing up to six months after their deaths.

In May 2023, the National Post reported the governor general can expense up to $130,000 in clothing during their five-year mandates, with a $60,000 cap during the first year.

Simon and Payette combined to expense $88,000 in clothing to taxpayers since 2017, including a velvet dress with silk lining, designer gloves, suits, shoes and scarves, among other items.

Rideau Hall expensed $117,000 in dry-cleaning services since 2018, despite having in-house staff responsible for laundry. That’s an average dry cleaning tab of more than $1,800 per month.

It’s also enough money to dry clean 13,831 blouses, 6,204 dresses or 3,918 duvets, according to the prices at Majestic Cleaners in Ottawa.

In 2022, Simon’s first full year on the job, she spent $2.7 million on travel, according to government records obtained by the CTF.

Simon’s travel has sparked multiple controversies, including her nearly six-figure in-flight catering tab during a weeklong trip to the Middle East, and her $71,000 bill at IceLimo Luxury Travel during a four-day trip to Iceland.

In the aftermath of the scandals, a parliamentary committee recommended a range of reforms to the governor general’s travel budget, including a regular review of the cost-effectiveness of trips, a reduction in the size of delegations and less spending on snacks and drinks.

“The platinum pay and perks for the governor general should have been reined in years ago,” Terrazzano said. “A serious government would mandate the governor general’s office be subject to access-to-information requests, cut all international travel except for meetings with the monarchy, end the expense account for former governors general, reform the pension and scrap the clothing allowance.”

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

Business

Honda deal latest episode of corporate welfare in Ontario

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Tegan Hill

If Honda, Volkswagen and Stellantis are unwilling to build their EV battery plants in Ontario without corporate welfare, that sends a strong signal that those projects make little economic sense.

On Thursday, the Trudeau and Ford governments announced they will dole out an estimated $5 billion in corporate welfare to Honda so the auto giant can build an electric vehicle (EV) battery plant and manufacture EVs in Ontario. This is the third such deal in Ontario, following similar corporate welfare handouts to Volkswagen ($13.2 billion) and Stellantis ($15.0 billion). Like the previous two deals, the Honda deal comes at a significant cost to taxpayers and will almost certainly fail to create widespread economic benefits for Ontarians.

The Trudeau and Ford governments finalized the Honda deal after more than a year of negotiations, with both governments promising direct incentives and tax credits. Of course, this isn’t free money. Taxpayers in Ontario and the rest of Canada will pay for this corporate welfare through their taxes.

Unfortunately, corporate welfare is nothing new. Governments in Canada have a long history of picking their favoured firms or industries and using a wide range of subsidies and other incentives to benefit those firms or industries selected for preferential treatment.

According to a recent study, the federal government spent $84.6 billion (adjusted for inflation) on business subsidies from 2007 to 2019 (the last pre-COVID year). Over the same period, provincial and local governments spent another $302.9 billion on business subsidies for their favoured firms and industries. (Notably, the study excludes other forms of government support such as loan guarantees, direct investments and regulatory privileges, so the total cost of corporate welfare during this period is actually much higher.)

Of course, when announcing the Honda deal, the Trudeau and Ford governments attempted to sell this latest example of corporate welfare as a way to create jobs. In reality, however, there’s little to no empirical evidence that corporate welfare creates jobs (on net) or produces widespread economic benefits.

Instead, these governments are simply picking winners and losers, shifting jobs and investment away from other firms and industries and circumventing the preferences of consumers and investors. If Honda, Volkswagen and Stellantis are unwilling to build their EV battery plants in Ontario without corporate welfare, that sends a strong signal that those projects make little economic sense.

Unfortunately, the Trudeau and Ford governments believe they know better than investors and entrepreneurs, so they’re using taxpayer money to allocate scarce resources—including labour—to their favoured projects and industries. Again, corporate welfare actually hinders economic growth, which Ontario and Canada desperately need, and often fails to produce jobs that would not otherwise have been created, while also requiring financial support from taxpayers.

It’s only a matter of time before other automakers ask for similar handouts from Ontario and the federal government. Indeed, after Volkswagen secured billions in federal subsidies, Stellantis stopped construction of an EV battery plant in Windsor until it received similar subsidies from the Trudeau government. Call it copycat corporate welfare.

Government handouts to corporations do not pave the path to economic success in Canada. To help foster widespread prosperity, governments should help create an environment where all businesses can succeed, rather than picking winners and losers on the backs of taxpayers.

Continue Reading

Addictions

Why can’t we just say no?

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Susan Martinuk

Drug use and violence have become common place in hospitals. Drug-addicted patients openly smoke meth and fentanyl, and inject heroin. Dealers traffic illicit drugs.  Nurses are harassed, forced to work amidst the toxic fumes from drugs and can’t confiscate weapons. In short, according to one nurse, “We’ve absolutely lost control.”

“Defining deviancy down” is a cultural philosophy that emerged in the United States during the 1990s.

It refers to society’s tendency to adjust its standards of deviancy “down,” so that behaviours which were once unacceptable become acceptable.  Over time, this newly- acceptable behaviour can even become society’s norm.

Of course, the converse must also be true — society looks down on those who label social behaviours “wrong,” deeming them moralistic, judgemental or simply out of touch with the realities of modern life.

Thirty years later, this philosophy is entrenched in British Columbia politics and policies. The province has become a society that cannot say “no” to harmful or wrong behaviours related to drug use. It doesn’t matter if you view drug use as a medical issue, a law-and-order issue, or both – we have lost the ability to simply say “no” to harmful or wrong behaviour.

That much has become abundantly clear over the past two weeks as evidence mounts that BC’s experiment with decriminalization and safe supply of hard drugs is only making things worse.

recently-leaked memo from BC’s Northern Health Authority shows the deleterious impact these measures have had on BC’s hospitals.

The memo instructs staff at the region’s hospitals to tolerate and not intervene with illegal drug use by patients.  Apparently, staff should not be taking away any drugs or personal items like a knife or other weapons under four inches long.  Staff cannot restrict visitors even if they are openly bringing illicit drugs into the hospital and conducting their drug transactions in the hallways.

The public was quite rightly outraged at the news and BC’s Health Minister Adrian Dix quickly attempted to contain the mess by saying that the memo was outdated and poorly worded.

But his facile excuses were quickly exposed by publication of the very clearly worded memo and by nurses from across the province who came forward to tell their stories of what is really happening in our hospitals.

The President of the BC Nurses Union, Adriane Gear, said the issue was “widespread” and “of significant magnitude.” She commented that the problems in hospitals spiked once the province decriminalized drugs. In a telling quote, she said, “Before there would be behaviours that just wouldn’t be tolerated, whereas now, because of decriminalization, it is being tolerated.”

Other nurses said the problem wasn’t limited to the Northern Health Authority. They came forward (both anonymously and openly) to say that drug use and violence have become common place in hospitals. Drug-addicted patients openly smoke meth and fentanyl, and inject heroin. Dealers traffic illicit drugs.  Nurses are harassed, forced to work amidst the toxic fumes from drugs and can’t confiscate weapons. In short, according to one nurse, “We’ve absolutely lost control.”

People think that drug policies have no impact on those outside of drug circles – but what about those who have to share a room with a drug-smoking patient?

No wonder healthcare workers are demoralized and leaving in droves. Maybe it isn’t just related to the chaos of Covid.

The shibboleth of decriminalization faced further damage when Fiona Wilson, the deputy chief of Vancouver’s Police Department, testified before a federal Parliamentary committee to say that the policy has been a failure. There have been more negative impacts than positive, and no decreases in overdose deaths or the overdose rate. (If such data emerged from any other healthcare experiment, it would immediately be shut down).

Wison also confirmed that safe supply drugs are being re-directed to illegal markets and now account for 50% of safe supply drugs that are seized. Her words echoed those of BC’s nurses when she told the committee that the police, “have absolutely no authority to address the problem of drug use.”

Once Premier David Eby and Health Minister Adrian Dix stopped denying that drug use was occurring in hospitals, they continued their laissez-faire approach to illegal drugs with a plan to create “safe consumption sites” at hospitals. When that lacked public appeal, Mr. Dix said the province would establish a task force to study the issue.

What exactly needs to be studied?

The NDP government appears to be uninformed, at best, and dishonest, at worst. It has backed itself into a corner and is now taking frantic and even ludicrous steps to legitimize its experimental policy of decriminalization. The realities that show it is not working and is creating harm towards others and toward institutions that should be a haven for healing.

How quickly we have become a society that lacks the moral will – and the moral credibility – to just to say “no.”

Susan Martinuk is a Senior Fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy and author of Patients at Risk: Exposing Canada’s Health-care Crisis.

Continue Reading

Trending

X