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

Energy

Global fossil fuel use rising despite UN proclamations

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Julio Mejía and Elmira Aliakbari

Major energy transitions are slow and take centuries, not decades… the first global energy transition—from traditional biomass fuels (including wood and charcoal) to fossil fuels—started more than two centuries ago and remains incomplete. Nearly three billion people in the developing world still depend on charcoal, straw and dried dung for cooking and heating, accounting for about 7 per cent of the world’s energy supply (as of 2020).

At the Conference of the Parties (COP29) in Azerbaijan, António Guterres, the United Nations Secretary-General, last week called for a global net-zero carbon footprint by 2050, which requires a “fossil fuel phase-out” and “deep decarbonization across the entire value chain.”

Yet despite the trillions of dollars already spent globally pursuing this target—and the additional trillions projected as necessary to “end the era of fossil fuels”—the world’s dependence on fossil fuels has remained largely unchanged.

So, how realistic is a “net-zero” emissions world—which means either eliminating fossil fuel generation or offsetting carbon emissions with activities such as planting trees—by 2050?

The journey began in 1995 when the UN hosted the first COP conference in Berlin, launching a global effort to drive energy transition and decarbonization. That year, global investment in renewable energy reached US$7 billion, according to some estimates. Since then, an extraordinary amount of money and resources have been allocated to the transition away from fossil fuels.

According to the International Energy Agency, between 2015 and 2023 alone, governments and industry worldwide spent US$12.3 trillion (inflation-adjusted) on clean energy. For context, that’s over six times the value of the entire Canadian economy in 2023.

Despite this spending, between 1995 and 2023, global fossil fuel consumption increased by 62 per cent, with oil consumption rising by 38 per cent, coal by 66 per cent and natural gas by 90 per cent.

And during that same 28-year period, despite the trillions spent on energy alternatives, the share of global energy provided by fossil fuels declined by only four percentage points, from 85.6 per cent to 81.5 per cent.

This should come as no surprise. Major energy transitions are slow and take centuries, not decades. According to a recent study by renowned scholar Vaclav Smil, the first global energy transition—from traditional biomass fuels (including wood and charcoal) to fossil fuels—started more than two centuries ago and remains incomplete. Nearly three billion people in the developing world still depend on charcoal, straw and dried dung for cooking and heating, accounting for about 7 per cent of the world’s energy supply (as of 2020).

Moreover, coal only surpassed wood as the main energy source worldwide around 1900. It took more than 150 years from oil’s first commercial extraction for oil to reach 25 per cent of all fossil fuels consumed worldwide. Natural gas didn’t reach this threshold until the end of the 20th century, after 130 years of industry development.

Now, consider the current push by governments to force an energy transition via regulation and spending. In Canada, the Trudeau government has set a target to fully decarbonize electricity generation by 2035 so all electricity is derived from renewable power sources such as wind and solar. But merely replacing Canada’s existing fossil fuel-based electricity with clean energy sources within the next decade would require building the equivalent of 23 major hydro projects (like British Columbia’s Site C) or 2.3 large-scale nuclear power plants (like Ontario’s Bruce Power). The planning and construction of significant electricity generation infrastructure in Canada is a complex and time-consuming process, often plagued by delays, regulatory hurdles and substantial cost overruns.

The Site C project took around 43 years from initial feasibility studies in 1971 to securing environmental certification in 2014. Construction began on the Peace River in northern B.C. in 2015, with completion expected in 2025 at a cost of at least $16 billion. Similarly, Ontario’s Bruce Power plant took nearly two decades to complete, with billions in cost overruns. Given these immense practical, financial and regulatory challenges, achieving the government’s 2035 target is highly improbable.

As politicians gather at high-profile conferences and set ambitious targets for a swift energy transition, global reliance on fossil fuels has continued to increase. As things stand, achieving net-zero by 2050 appears neither realistic nor feasible.

Continue Reading

Business

Taxpayer watchdog calls Trudeau ‘out of touch’ for prioritizing ‘climate change’ while families struggle

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

The prime minister told a G20 panel this week that fighting so-called ‘climate change’ should be more important to families than putting food on the table or paying rent.

Canada’s leading taxpayer watchdog blasted Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for being completely “out of touch” with everyday Canadians after the PM earlier this week suggested his climate “change” policies, including a punitive carbon tax, are more important for families than trying to stay financially afloat.

In speaking to LifeSiteNews, Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) federal director Franco Terrazzano said Trudeau’s recent comments show his government “continues to prove it’s out of touch with its carbon tax.”

“Canadians don’t support the carbon tax because we know it makes life more expensive and it doesn’t help the environment,” Terrazzano told LifeSiteNews.

Terrazzano’s comments come after Trudeau told a G20 panel earlier this week that fighting so-called “climate change” should be more important to families than putting food on the table or paying rent.

Speaking to the panel, Trudeau commented that it is “really, really easy” to “put climate change as a slightly lower priority” when one has “to be able to pay the rent this month” or “buy groceries” for their “kids,” but insisted that “we can’t do that around climate change.”

Terrazzano said that the Trudeau government’s carbon tax in reality “impacts nearly all aspects of life in Canada by making it more expensive to fuel up our cars, heat our homes and buy food.”

“The carbon tax also puts a huge hole in our economy that we can’t afford,” he said to LifeSiteNews, adding that if Trudeau really wanted to help Canadians and “prove it understands the struggles facing Canadians,” then it should “scrap the carbon tax to make life more affordable.”

On Thursday, Trudeau, who is facing abysmal polling numbers, announced he would introduce a temporary pause on the federal Goods and Services Tax (GST) for some goods.

Conservative Party of Canada leader Pierre Poilievre this afternoon said about Trudeau’s temporary tax holiday that if he is serious about helping Canadians, he would cut the carbon tax completely.

“What a ridiculous gimmick. Bribing Canadians temporarily with borrowed money,” Bernier wrote.

“When the real solution is to stop growing the bureaucracy, cut wasteful spending, stop sending billions to Ukraine, eliminate subsidies to businesses and activist groups, stop creating new unsustainable and unconstitutional social programs, eliminate the deficit, and THEN, cut taxes for real. None of which he will do of course.”

As reported by LifeSiteNews, a survey found that nearly half of Canadians are just $200 away from financial ruin as the costs of housing, food and other necessities has gone up massively since Trudeau took power in 2015.

In addition to the increasing domestic carbon tax, LifeSiteNews reported last week that Minister of Environment Steven Guilbeault wants to create a new “global’ carbon tax applied to all goods shipped internationally that could further drive-up prices for families already struggling with inflated costs.

Not only is the carbon tax costing Canadian families hundreds of dollars annually, but Liberals also have admitted that the tax has only reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 1 percent.

Continue Reading

Trending

X