G8, G20 cost 1Billion

[nicky10013]

I guess you didn't read past the first line.

You realize that all of Brampton, Oakville and Oshawa are a 45 minute to an hour drive. Have fun paying that cab fare.

[Smallc]

You realize that all of Brampton, Oakville and Oshawa are a 45 minute to an hour drive. Have fun paying that cab fare.

The article mentions a shuttle bus.

[nicky10013]

The article mentions a shuttle bus.

Yeah, to get between the stations in the burbs which are even further apart between themselves and the city.

[Smallc]

Yeah, to get between the stations in the burbs which are even further apart between themselves and the city.

Yes, it's a massive inconvenience, but the point stands that VIA is not shutting down.

[nicky10013]

Yes, it's a massive inconvenience, but the point stands that VIA is not shutting down.

To Toronto it might as well be. When they're cancelling people's tickets what's the difference?

[Molly]

The notion of shuttlebuses to successfully bypass Union Station is... absurd.

The plan sounds suspiciously like 'We're going to close our eyes really tight, and hope it just goes away.'

[g_bambino]

It's not really costing much more than all the others though. Japan spent almost $400M on the G8. Multiply that by 2, and put half of it in Toronto.....mystery solved.

I see conflicting reports for the G8 in Tōyako; one says $561 million for security alone, another $285 million for the entire summit. The latter seems more realistic, to me, and what we should be using as a benchmark against which to compare the costs for these two meetings in Ontario. If the former number is accurate, I'd be more inclined to understand the cost of this year's G8 and G20, but would still think the figures are astronomically high.

[Oleg Bach]

It makes the people storming the office go away?

I don't know what they're going to do with the thing; I was just being (somewhat) facetious about using it on OCAP.

JUST what we need - deaf vibrant and vigorous young rebels who will eventually run the nation.

[Argus]

Neither of I....it's simply a case of some people thinking that they know more about what security costs than security experts hired by the government.

Don't get me wrong. I find these costs a real eye opener. I am concerned by them. But the parliamentary budget officer and the AG are both looking into the costs. If they show masses of wasteful and unnecessary spending someone needs to take it in the ear over that. I'm wiling to wait for those reports, tho.

[Oleg Bach]

Don't get me wrong. I find these costs a real eye opener. I am concerned by them. But the parliamentary budget officer and the AG are both looking into the costs. If they show masses of wasteful and unnecessary spending someone needs to take it in the ear over that. I'm wiling to wait for those reports, tho.

To many pay offs and bribes to henchmen- mainly security...we don't need to bribe the palace guards - if we do bribe them then that shows that it is all very base and only about money - the summit should be about good social change..and the proper management of money - having your own standing mercenary army does not look good to the people.

[Argus]

That's exactly what Harper and Flaherty should have said to these security/logistics bureaucrats who will spend a fortune given half a chance. They love the bells and whistles.

You are presuming Harper and Flaherty know more about security requirements than the experts? I wonder what the results would be if they overruled the experts and there was a disaster because they wanted security on the cheap....

The auditors will simply say that services were delivered for the money spent. Ordinary small-c Canadians object to the decision to spend the money.

No, these are performance audits, which will also judge whether the money was spent wisely, whether costs were necessary.

Harper has lost his base on this one and if you can't see that Argus, you're hopelessly out of touch in Ottawa la-la-land.

<shrug> Do you for one moment think the spending would have been less with Ignatieff in charge? I don't.

[Argus]

I see conflicting reports for the G8 in Tōyako; one says $561 million for security alone, another $285 million for the entire summit. The latter seems more realistic, to me, and what we should be using as a benchmark against which to compare the costs for these two meetings in Ontario. If the former number is accurate, I'd be more inclined to understand the cost of this year's G8 and G20, but would still think the figures are astronomically high.

There was a time when soldiers and cops were just guys with guns. They were very cheap to employ. Now the average rate for hiring a cop - overtime - is over $100k apiece. Soldiers don't get overtime but they're not cheap either. And for all the out of town cops and soldiers you need to provide air fare, local hotel rooms, food, local transport, etc. I'm sure it costs a pretty penny. Whether the money was spent wisely, however, remains to be seen.

[Oleg Bach]

IGGY is an ambitious crook at heart also - and all those that are slightly askew when it comes to morality and law demand protection - security...it is a show of strength - posturing ---"look at me maw - I am so important that people want to harm me because I harm them"... All of the problems economically and politically stem from the mis- concept about what power really is - Power is the generation of power to all..not the taking of power - for instance - If you have a nuclear power plant on a hill - it is useless no matter how much force is stored within - it only becomes powerful when lines are installed running out to light the towns.

The important question here is whether the G gang -- is going to really be a benefit to us. AND are they going to be worth our investment in this conference? I sense these summits are unpopular with youth because they seem to be about ego and showing off personal success..THAT THEY ARE THE GAY DAY PARADE OF THE OVERLY PROUD BUSINESS ELITE.

[Smallc]

I see conflicting reports for the G8 in Tōyako; one says $561 million for security alone, another $285 million for the entire summit. The latter seems more realistic, to me, and what we should be using as a benchmark against which to compare the costs for these two meetings in Ontario. If the former number is accurate, I'd be more inclined to understand the cost of this year's G8 and G20, but would still think the figures are astronomically high.

But still, even against the later figure, $1.1B doesn't seem all that far out of line. You have two summits, one in the downtown of the countries largest city...and about 50 important government and world officials involved compared to about 15 for the G8. I don't like the cost...but I don't think it's very out of whack if at all.

[g_bambino]

But still, even against the later figure, $1.1B doesn't seem all that far out of line. You have two summits, one in the downtown of the countries largest city...and about 50 important government and world officials involved compared to about 15 for the G8. I don't like the cost...but I don't think it's very out of whack if at all.

If we assume the G8 in Huntsville cost the same as the G8 in Tōyako, that leaves $815 million for the G20 in Toronto. I find that figure excessive. But, then again, I find the level of security excessive; more for show than actual purpose, really.

[g_bambino]

There was a time when soldiers and cops were just guys with guns. They were very cheap to employ. Now the average rate for hiring a cop - overtime - is over $100k apiece...

Yes, the overtime pay did factor into my speculations about why this is costing so much.

[JB Globe]

I'm quite pissed off about the G20, for several reasons:

1 - The location chosen was one of the worst in terms of the amount of disruption it would cause to hold the summit there. There were other alternative locations that would have decreased costs and disruptions dramatically. Specifically - the Metro convention centre is right next door to SkyDome, CN Tower, and the downtown core, there are tens of thousands of people who live just a block or two away from it. The actual summit could have easily been held at the Direct Energy Centre or the brand-new Allstream centre both of which are at Exhibition Place (where they have the CNE) which is a location that is frequently closed off for events (like the old Toronto Indy) and has only a few entry/exit points to fence off. No residential buildings would have been affected by locating it here. As it stands my friend has a fence on two sides of his building, one of them being a triple-ring fence, and his building may be on lock-down for two days during the summit.

2 - The conservatives, in spite of the obvious, are trying to sell this summit as a big win to promote Toronto. They would've done a lot better trying to sell this thing as a favour Toronto was doing the rest of Canada, because it's pretty clear that the cons outweigh the few pros at least as far as the city is concerned. Many businesses are shutting down, it's going to kill festivals going on downtown like the Jazz Fest because people are steering clear of the mess. And all this talk about how "this will show off Toronto" is complete BS. Delegates are going to arrive by plane, get driven to their hotels where they're going to be on lock-down until summit-time when they'll be driven to the convention centre. There is not even a chance for them to experience anything outside of their hotel, car, and convention centre.

The media too, will be on a self-imposed lock-down - they have their marching orders from their editors, who care ONLY about the summit, and could care less where it's being held, because they're not there to cover the city. Just go back and look at the reports coming out of Pittsburg, London - do any of those wax poetics about how great those cities are? No - they don't even mention them because they're too busy covering the summit and the protests.

Frankly the cons look ridiculous every time they try to tell Torontonians that this is a win - they should've been selling it as an honourable sacrifice, for their own political sake.

3 - The money spent is not going to trickle down to all Torontonians. Case-in-point: Although the Feds have bought out several downtown hotels completely for the summit (Intercontinental, Royal York, etc) the guest rooms are only going to be 50-70% full (whereas usually at this time they're over 90%) and none of the meeting rooms at the hotels will be in use, but they're still paid for by your tax dollars. Why? Because they RCMP needs to sweep every room and lock it up so no one can sneak in and plant something. But of course, the hotels are still charging full rate . . . For an empty guest room which doesn't have to be cleaned, or a meeting room which doesn't have to be set-up, meaning lots of staff are going to be out of work and the hotels are simply pocketing all that profit. I learned all this from a friend of mind who stuck around at one of the big hotels downtown after I left following graduation from my program, he made manager eventually and also told me about this nugget: That a couple had a wedding scheduled already during the G20, and the feds bought-out their wedding so they would move it to another date. Meaning - they're getting a $150 000 payout of your tax dollars toward their wedding.

Should be some party.

4 - The decision to not pay for property damage as a result of civil disobedience. Most insurance policies don't cover damage from protests-gone-wrong, so if someone torches a store with a molotov cocktail, that owner is going bankrupt, unless the cons pony up the money. This is a potential PR disaster for them if something bad does happen, they're either going to have to reverse their decision earlier to not allocate money for property damage in the G20 budget, or loose a ton of political face and refuse to pay out to businesses that are going under because of the fed's decision to have the summit next door to them.

[nicky10013]

I'm quite pissed off about the G20, for several reasons:

1 - The location chosen was one of the worst in terms of the amount of disruption it would cause to hold the summit there. There were other alternative locations that would have decreased costs and disruptions dramatically. Specifically - the Metro convention centre is right next door to SkyDome, CN Tower, and the downtown core, there are tens of thousands of people who live just a block or two away from it. The actual summit could have easily been held at the Direct Energy Centre or the brand-new Allstream centre both of which are at Exhibition Place (where they have the CNE) which is a location that is frequently closed off for events (like the old Toronto Indy) and has only a few entry/exit points to fence off. No residential buildings would have been affected by locating it here. As it stands my friend has a fence on two sides of his building, one of them being a triple-ring fence, and his building may be on lock-down for two days during the summit.

2 - The conservatives, in spite of the obvious, are trying to sell this summit as a big win to promote Toronto. They would've done a lot better trying to sell this thing as a favour Toronto was doing the rest of Canada, because it's pretty clear that the cons outweigh the few pros at least as far as the city is concerned. Many businesses are shutting down, it's going to kill festivals going on downtown like the Jazz Fest because people are steering clear of the mess. And all this talk about how "this will show off Toronto" is complete BS. Delegates are going to arrive by plane, get driven to their hotels where they're going to be on lock-down until summit-time when they'll be driven to the convention centre. There is not even a chance for them to experience anything outside of their hotel, car, and convention centre.

The media too, will be on a self-imposed lock-down - they have their marching orders from their editors, who care ONLY about the summit, and could care less where it's being held, because they're not there to cover the city. Just go back and look at the reports coming out of Pittsburg, London - do any of those wax poetics about how great those cities are? No - they don't even mention them because they're too busy covering the summit and the protests.

Frankly the cons look ridiculous every time they try to tell Torontonians that this is a win - they should've been selling it as an honourable sacrifice, for their own political sake.

3 - The money spent is not going to trickle down to all Torontonians. Case-in-point: Although the Feds have bought out several downtown hotels completely for the summit (Intercontinental, Royal York, etc) the guest rooms are only going to be 50-70% full (whereas usually at this time they're over 90%) and none of the meeting rooms at the hotels will be in use, but they're still paid for by your tax dollars. Why? Because they RCMP needs to sweep every room and lock it up so no one can sneak in and plant something. But of course, the hotels are still charging full rate . . . For an empty guest room which doesn't have to be cleaned, or a meeting room which doesn't have to be set-up, meaning lots of staff are going to be out of work and the hotels are simply pocketing all that profit. I learned all this from a friend of mind who stuck around at one of the big hotels downtown after I left following graduation from my program, he made manager eventually and also told me about this nugget: That a couple had a wedding scheduled already during the G20, and the feds bought-out their wedding so they would move it to another date. Meaning - they're getting a $150 000 payout of your tax dollars toward their wedding.

Should be some party.

4 - The decision to not pay for property damage as a result of civil disobedience. Most insurance policies don't cover damage from protests-gone-wrong, so if someone torches a store with a molotov cocktail, that owner is going bankrupt, unless the cons pony up the money. This is a potential PR disaster for them if something bad does happen, they're either going to have to reverse their decision earlier to not allocate money for property damage in the G20 budget, or loose a ton of political face and refuse to pay out to businesses that are going under because of the fed's decision to have the summit next door to them.

Couldn't agree more. Fantastic post.

[Smallc]

If we assume the G8 in Huntsville cost the same as the G8 in Tōyako, that leaves $815 million for the G20 in Toronto. I find that figure excessive. But, then again, I find the level of security excessive; more for show than actual purpose, really.

Well, we have to take into account two years worth of inflation for security costs...and there's no doubt that the G20 is the far more expensive summit.

[nicky10013]

Well, we have to take into account two years worth of inflation for security costs...and there's no doubt that the G20 is the far more expensive summit.

Really?

The Put People First march - featuring an alliance of 150 groups, including unions, charities, environmental campaigners and faith organisations - came amid anger at the £19 million cost of staging the conference at a time of economic downturn.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1165382/35-000-protesters-turn-G20-march-London---police-arrest-just-one.html#ixzz0qy3aBgxY

[nicky10013]

Shock and awe over 50 million pounds.

http://www.publicservice.co.uk/news_story.asp?id=8860

[nicky10013]

http://www.publicservice.co.uk/news_story.asp?id=8860

Security alone to cost 10 million pounds.

[Oleg Bach]

If we assume the G8 in Huntsville cost the same as the G8 in Tōyako, that leaves $815 million for the G20 in Toronto. I find that figure excessive. But, then again, I find the level of security excessive; more for show than actual purpose, really.

That's my point - even these G8 guys are nice people they would not need this amount of security..I am sure they are nice old financers ..but who ever is handling the facilitation of the summit are a bit stupid because they are base and think that power is brutality and oppression - I am sure the summit people do not think like that - It is international middle management that project the summit as evil to be protected - those that are ambitious and worship the rich..nothing worse than a hooligan cop doing security who thinks if he beats you on the head - he will be rewarded with a pat on the head and a bonus of a few bucks.

[Topaz]

Here's a the latest.... Harper has turned the G8 into G18-20! Remember the money the that to be spent because there wouldn't be enough room in Huntsville for a G20? Well, Harper invited 10 more countries to the former G8 but now the G20 summit!!! The G20 has become the G33-34 summit! Now tell me that Harper REALLY cares about our tax dollars! The people in Huntsville and Toronto are going to be really peeved off with all of the stuff they have to suffer by because Harper wants to party, its all about HIM! http://www.thestar.com/news/world/g8/article/823412--huntsville-g8-will-host-10-more-countries-says-pm

[Smallc]

The G8, even with 10 more leaders there, is still far smaller than the G20.

Edited June 15, 2010 by Smallc