At a time of austerity and in the interests of eliminating wasteful and unproductive government spending, the Office of the Governor General should be eliminated. At $41 million a year the GG”s annual budget is more than the $27 million in election cycle subsidies that Harper was so keen to eliminate.
As Harper himself argued, government needs to lead by example. So rather than eliminate $27 million of election cycle funding, the effect of which would diminish our democracy, let’s instead eliminate $41 million in annual funding for an institution that only detracts from our democracy. To cite the metrics employed by Jim Flaherty, we aren’t getting “good value for money”. In fact, I would argue that we are getting no value for a lot of wasted money.
The constitutional tasks of the Governor General can be performed by the courts, the incremental cost of which would be negligible, and the rulings less whimsical.
Friday, December 5, 2008
My fiscal stimulus package includes eliminating the Governor General....to be replaced by a judicial process.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I don't necessarily agree with her decision yesterday, and I'd prefer an elected Head of State, but I'm curious about your motives for this statement. How did you feel about the GG's position yesterday morning? Would you feel differently if she hadn't prorogued?
Nice to see someone is thinking of solutions on behalf of members of the general public. Great example of fiscal responsibility by making better use of our court systems.
Wow, $41 million a year. Thank you for bringing that to our attention. What a waste of money - especially in this case as MJ has not given the Canadian public $41 million dollars worth of representation or service. I also doubt the Queen of England thinks MJ deserves to be GG of Canada and resents that someone with a third world heritage was appointed the job. Another great example of Mr. Martin's failings as PM.
Since there is very little arts funding left in this country and artists will no longer be producing decent work or receiving travel grants or grants to transport exhibitions across the country - her position really has become obsolete. Since the Conservative decision was made that there will be no more culture in this country, Canada really no longer has a need for a GG. Wow, I don't recall reading about that particular benefit from those cuts.
Harper, Mr. F and all who voted Conservative, decided Canadian Culture can be imported it from elsewhere like China, India, USA, etc. Or Canadian Culture can be provided by corporations like American owned Tim Horton's. Instead CEO's can make those trips for us using their existing marketing & branding budgets as it is already part of their corporate responsibilities. If Canada is invited to do something cultural on an international scale - Mr. Harper can go and show off his piano skills that he felt the need to blab on about, while making those arts cuts. I am sure the rest of the world will really enjoy the entertainment.
Excellent idea taking that 41 million back - win win for all Canadians. No more useless GG - $41 million back in the budget.
Oh! Oh! Oh! Watch out! You will have the monarchist brigade after you!
YF
Watch what you wish for!!! We must not surrender our Parliamentary democracy . We do not want a President Harper. The office of the Governor General is essential. I fear that if she had refused Harper, he would have started a movement for a republic PDQ. (I wouldn't put it past him to link her to separatist sympathies, recalling the kerfuffle over her husband's film when she was first appointed, to further enflame the nation.)
She has given him a chance. If the coalition can vote no confidence when the House resumes, she is on sound footing to allow them to form government rather than go to an election.
Elizabeth May
Elizabeth:
Nothing in what I am hypothetically suggesting involves in any way diminishing our Parliamentary democracy. In fact quite the opposite. In light of recent events, replacing the GG with a judicial process, could only enhance our parliamentary democracy. The decision to prorogue Parliament under this “fact pattern” of circumstances is an affront to our democracy. If the GG has the privilege of denying a prorogation request, which the GG clearly does, then under what set of circumstance, more bizarre than these, would be required by the GG to deny prorogation? I can’t conceive of any myself.
I seek Parliamentary democracy in substance, and not merely in form. I hope your faith in the GG proves to be well placed insofar as acting in a manner that is consistent with the duty of the GG to determine if an alternative government can be formed from this Parliament. I understand it is incumbent on the GG to make such a determination.
Meanwhile I was making light of the fact that if Harper is so keen on showing restraint at the political level, then the first thing to cut back on would be the budget of the GG and not the $1.95 subsidies to parties. But we all know that Harper’s move was never about the money in the first place. Simply more of his endless deceit wrapped up for public consumption.
Brent Fullard
Maybe someone could explain to me why it is necessary that she has these powers.
What in her background gives her the ability to make these types of decisions??
I had always understood her position to be more ceremonial than parliamentary.
Dr Mike Popovich.
Post a Comment