Julie Payette is gone. Bob Hepburn writes that it's time to make her job go with her. Consider what she did and what it cost:
In the 40 months that Julie Payette was Canada’s governor general she read two throne speeches, officiated once over the dissolution of Parliament, swore in some 30 cabinet ministers and wrote her signature on several dozen pieces of legislation.
That basically was the sum total of her primary duties.
She also spent a bit of time meeting children, cutting ribbons and handing out public service awards. By all accounts, Payette hated doing many of these tasks — to the point she even stopped doing some of them.
Total cost of operating her office over those 40 months?
Think about it: Canada spends more than $35 million a year for a position that’s a largely ceremonial relic of British colonialism.
It's nice work, if you can get it:
It seems like the perfect job — the workload is light, the pay is $288,900 a year, the benefits are spectacular, including an inflation-adjusted pension of $149,484 a year for life for a job that lasts just five years, a large staff ($19 million a year), servants, chauffeur-driven vehicles and two official residences, Rideau Hall in Ottawa and La Citadelle in Quebec City ($9 million annually)
One can argue that Payette was simply the wrong person for the job: She could have done so much more, and she could have done it with so much more politesse. But, just as the Electoral College is an anachronism in the United States, perhaps the office of the Queen's representative in Canada is no longer necessary.
Image: National Observer
24 comments:
If we're getting rid of the GG, let's do the job properly and get rid of the royal family.
The Queen is the biggest ceremonial relic of British colonialism. Yes, I know the Queen and her representative retain some largely theoretical functions in the event of a dispute as to who gets to form government (see Australian constitutional crisis), but these issues can be codified and left to the speaker or the courts to decide. It's time Canada cut the apron strings, especially as King Charles looms ever more likely.
Cap
My sense -- and I could be wrong, Cap -- is that Canadians would be in favour of abolishing the GG's office. But they'd want to keep the Queen -- even King Charles as a figurehead. Perhaps other commentators will tell me that I'm wrong.
The trouble is that by getting rid of the Queen's representative only, you eliminate the middle-man and the powers revert to the foreign monarch. I don't think Canadians would like the Queen making decisions on whether a Canadian PM can prototype the Canadian parliament, and I don't think the Queen wants that power either. She's got her hands full with BoJo as it is.
Cap
As an Ex Brit I must say I have a certain admiration and respect for the queen who has now brought honor to the royal family for some 70 years next month, I cannot find the same respect for her son however, perhaps her eldest grandson will eventually regain some of that. However I agree that there is little need for the largely ceremonial roll of the GG here in Canada to continue and we can now be sure that the recent events around that position will bring much debate about doing away with that 'job', particularly given the cost of same!
Seems incompatible with a reasonably modern, ethical, and just society to be retaining anything of a role for the monarchy. Pricey ceremonial nostalgia is little justification for the expenditures on pomp and pageantry that signal imperial hierarchy in a land that was squatted by the empire and whose wealth pyramid looks increasingly imperial. They can stay in the history books and they can keep their heads.
I agree a long hard look at the GG Office and Role is not a bad idea, but the bigger issue here is how horrible people like Payette rise (pun entirely intentional) to their own incompetence to amazingly overwrought leadership roles. That she ran roughshod over her staff, destroyed multiple careers and no doubt some marriages along the way as well as disgraced the country is really the sobering piece here. Multiple Payettes are out there destroying organizations with big smiles on their faces and they're held up as profiles in leadership. Time to focus on the grown up bullies as well as those in the schoolyards destroying their peers. BC Waterboy
I expect that the Queen would be quite happy to relinquish her Canadian responsibilities, Cap. As always, the problem is how to do it. Perhaps Canadians would reluctantly relinquish their ties to the Royal Family.
I'm sure that Payette's departure will spark the debate anew, Rural. It's a debate we should have.
The central problem as I see it, Dannaeau, is that the monarchy is still associated with "The White Man's Burden" -- an idea which should have been consigned to the dustbin of history long ago.
We seem to be cursed with a number of public bullies these days, waterboy. I agree that the central issue is how Payette managed to rise as high as she did -- even as an astronaut.
As much as I don't like it I suspect that governments need someone to do the ceremonial stuff. If we got rid of the GG would we need a Vice President?
Having suggested that I think our GG's wages, expense account and retirement benefit should be cut in half and her staff reduced. The job needs to be defined and the self aggrandizing stopped. There are lots of people who could do the job; let's stop with the celebrities.
If the right person does the job, Toby, something tells me the expense account would be more reasonable.
I am debating whether or not to put my two cents worth in on this post, but decided to go ahead at the risk of being shouted down.
I kind of like being a part of the Commonwealth and don't mind having the Queen as the official head of state. It's not like she sticks her nose into our business very much, so what's the big deal, really. So we need the GG to take care of all the official business. Having said that, though, I do object to the money used to support the office of the GG.
I suspect that you represent the majority of Canadians, Gordie, who bear the Queen no will. I'm not sure, though, how the problem of her place in the structure of government would be worked out without a GG.
Maybe she should have donated her services, like tRump did!
The Qeen represents our form of democracy which comes out of the Magna Carter so why get rid of her? I would not want any resemblance of what they have south of us in any form of a Republic. We in Canada can if we are willing, can make this a country where equality is for every citizen no matter of their job, race or culture we come from. A GG is an expensive drag on the tax payer of this country. Anyong
Some donations are no gifts, John.
It's a safe bet that most Canadians wouldn't want to live in a republic, Anyong. The experience of living next to one has left a lasting impression.
If we abolish the office of the GG does that mean we are saying we do not want the Queen as head of state? If so, how do we pick a head of state? Lottery?
@ Danneau 10:55 am
Seems incompatible with a reasonably modern, ethical, and just society to be retaining anything of a role for the monarchy
I am sure the good citizens of Sweden, Norway, Japan. Thailand, the Netherlands, Denmark, etc. would agree. A lot of modern and "stable" countries have monarchies.
Interesting, jrk. The problem is that our monarchy encompasses more than one country.
I can solve all these problems. Let's advertise the job. Some fixed hourly rate plus benefits - ADM (assistant deputy minister) scale. $200 an hour plus full medical and dental should do it. 10 hr. work week. Must own car and be able to travel. Pension eligibility @ 5% per year employed.
If, however, we need a homegrown monarch, I am available.
@ Owen 6:41 pm
The problem is that our monarchy encompasses more than one country.
It still does not obviate the need for a head of state. Of course, given the way the UK is going the monarch might be glad to relocate to Rideau Hall. Problem solved.
If the word gets around, Mound, your phone will be ringing.
Who knows what will be left of the UK by the time BoJo leaves the stage, jrk?
Post a Comment