G8, G20 cost 1Billion

[waldo]

Let me though reiterate that I still think the costs are unnecessary, I just don't think they're so hard to understand anymore given the 200M figure.

it's a boondoggle! I tells ya... it's a Harper Conservative $1.1 Billion dollar boondoggle! Over a 3 day photo-op - oh my... Booooooondoggle!

[eyeball]

I'll be there protesting.

I can't make it myself but perhaps I could donate a few bucks somewhere and sponsor a protester.

At $50,000 per dignitary it'll take a lot of protesters to make a difference.

[Argus]

I wasn't saying I agreed with the cost, I was saying that the G20 wouldn't fit in places where the G8 would. I accept the amount as factual. I don't necessarily accept it as necessary. Perhaps it is, I'd have to see everything to know.

That said, if Kananaskis was $200M, and then we adjust for inflation, the fact that there are two sites (one of them being Toronto) and the fact that there are more than 20 world leaders involved, it doesn't actually seem as ridiculous as it first did.

I frankly don't understand the costs. I thought salaries, at first, but that doesn't seem to add up.

Lets say that we pay a cop/security guard/soldier an average of $250 per day. A thousand of them would cost us a quarter million per day. Ten thousand of them would obviously cost ten times more, ie 2.5 million dollars per day. So the event is three days. Okay, let's say we need them for a full week prior to the event, plus the three days. SO that's ten days at 2.5 million per day. That's $25 million on salaries. They said there were 20,000 cops/soldiers/security involved. So double that figure. We get $50 million. Now, we have to put them somewhere, ie hotel rooms or something. So let's add another $100 per day per person for accommodation. That's another $20 million. Too cheap? Let's say $200 per day per man. That still only gets us to $50 million salaries and $40 million in accommodation. I'm at a loss to understand how the figure gets to a billion, frankly.

[Smallc]

From what I understand, there are kilometers worth of 3M fences, significant new equipment including two massive telecommunication systems, etc. Then there is the operational cost of things like CF-188s, CC-130s, C-177s, CC-150s, Ch-124s, CH-146s, CH-149s, police cars, police helicopters, coast guard equipment, possibly naval vessels etc, etc, etc. There is also the cost of the civilian personell from DND, the RCMP, Public Safety, etc.

I would imagine that many of these costs add up quickly.

There also has to be two massive master plans developed by Public Safety. The RCMP, DND, and other agencies such as the Coast Guard, the OPP, and the Toronto Police will also have their own plans and systems that need to be and have been developed. This is really a massive undertaking when you think of it...though it's probably a bit over the top.

Edited May 28, 2010 by Smallc

[williat]

Maybe if you factored in the cost of everything, I mean high security means public transit and regular traffic probably can't run to some areas for security reasons, maybe they will shut down the skies over Toronto that day. But without a doubt a billion dollars sounds a little far fetched, sort of seems like we're just pissing money into the wind.

[waldo]

Harper Conservative boondoggle!

uhhh... I'll see your gun registry cost overrun... and raise you a Harper Conservative G20 $1.1 Billion dollar boondoggle.

[Argus]

Harper Conservative boondoggle!

uhhh... I'll see your gun registry cost overrun... and raise you a Harper Conservative G20 $1.1 Billion dollar boondoggle.

Some day you might amaze us by having something intelligent to contribute. But we're not holding our collective breath.

[August1991]

“I don’t believe it’s a gold-plated security plan,” he said. “The reality is it is providing comparable security for the G8 and G20 meetings that would be provided in other countries and has been provided in other countries.”

Toronto Star

This guy Ward Elcock is everything that is wrong with Ottawa and the federal bureaucracy and government. Harper simply does not have the control over these guys.

I don't know if any politician can say no.

[Battletoads]

~1 Billion dollars of the public's money to hold something like 3 days of private closed door meetings.

Didn't the cons claim to be fiscally conservative?

[Jack Weber]

~1 Billion dollars of the public's money to hold something like 3 days of private closed door meetings.

Didn't the cons claim to be fiscally conservative?

Yes ,but that's becoming more of running joke every day.....

[nicky10013]

On CTV's Question Period yesterday, Vic Toews, Minister of Public Safety attended to answer questions about the billion dollar bill. When asked why the government is using RCMP instead of the army, which is much cheaper and costs no overtime compared to the RCMP, the minister answered that the government was afraid of Liberal attack ads about troops in the streets. The host then asked, "so basically what you're saying is your charging the taxpayers a couple hundred million dollars extra because you're afraid of what the Liberals might say?" To which there was no response.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/fear-of-liberal-advertising-to-blame-for-billion-dollar-g20-tab/article1586428/

[eyeball]

I'm still trying to get my head around the spectacle of a Canadian government official telling us that the last two countries to host summits effectively lied to their own populations by seemingly hiding the high costs of hosting these things from them. If that's really the case, how does our government justify entering us into agreements with known liars?

I'd like to hear how the leaders of the last two countries - our invited guests - feel about being labelled as liars by our leader's spokespeople.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... If that's really the case, how does our government justify entering us into agreements with known liars?

LOL! Where do you want to start? Maybe free trade agreements or perhaps collective security treaties? How about shiny new bridges between Detroit and Windsor?

[msdogfood]

They dont know how to get out of this one!!

[noahbody]

Someone on the radio suggested using the UN headquarters as they're already set up for security. That makes sense to me.

Either that or use video conferencing.

[wyly]

or they could have built a hotel and conference rooms Iqaluit for the affair and still saved a billion on security, no way AQ would have any means of getting in there...these meetings are really about photo ops for the PM, we're paying for pre election propaganda...

[eyeball]

LOL! Where do you want to start? Maybe free trade agreements or perhaps collective security treaties? How about shiny new bridges between Detroit and Windsor?

What free trade and security might that be?

[maple_leafs182]

What free trade and security might that be?

NAFTA and the security and the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.

Hell, we made it legal for the U.S. to deploy troops in Canada.

[eyeball]

Like I said what free trade, have you tried to take a load of two-by-fours across the border lately?

As for US troops and security...the two terms don't belong in the same sentence.

[bush_cheney2004]

What free trade and security might that be?

Whatever "liars" wish it to be. It's either that or huddle close to the border with rabbit ear antennas! LOL!

[Dave_ON]

From the article Nicky posted.

Blaming Michael Ignatieff’s Liberals is the latest defence in the Conservative quiver of excuses to try to explain the massive $1-billion security tab for next month’s G8/G20 summits.

As the public outcry grows against the huge cost for the three-day meeting, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews told CTV’s Question Period yesterday that using the military – which would have been a much cheaper option than the RCMP – would have provoked political outrage from the Liberals.

“You know, of course, what the opposition parties would say, the Liberals, they would say the army in streets with guns,” said Mr. Toews.

In part says Mr. Toews decisions around security were “political decisions.”

Noting that the military were used for part of the Olympic security last February in Vancouver, Mr. Toews said, “It’s quite another thing when you start bringing in the army in a civilian context, into a civilian setting.… Do you remember that advertisement?”

I'm seriously in shock that'd they'd say this and oddly amused at the apparently lasting impact of Martin's smear campaign. Be that as it may I really never expected even the CPC to try an pin this one on LPC. Isn't that excuse getting tired? "The opposition made me do it"

I can't say I'm terribly surprised at the number. Mr. Harper has always been heavy on security spending. He's spent more on his own personal security than any previous sitting PM. Gone are the days when Jean would wrestle/punch his assailant into submission. Maybe Mr. Chretien is free that weekend, I'm sure the old buriser wouldn't mind helping his country out for a fraction of the cost.

[GostHacked]

On CTV's Question Period yesterday, Vic Toews, Minister of Public Safety attended to answer questions about the billion dollar bill. When asked why the government is using RCMP instead of the army, which is much cheaper and costs no overtime compared to the RCMP, the minister answered that the government was afraid of Liberal attack ads about troops in the streets. The host then asked, "so basically what you're saying is your charging the taxpayers a couple hundred million dollars extra because you're afraid of what the Liberals might say?" To which there was no response.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/fear-of-liberal-advertising-to-blame-for-billion-dollar-g20-tab/article1586428/

I would not want to use the Army or any military personnel for civilian crowd control within Canada. This is why we have police forces and the RCMP.

[Smallc]

I would not want to use the Army or any military personnel for civilian crowd control within Canada. This is why we have police forces and the RCMP.

And some Liberals (including Mark Holland) agree with you, as do I. The army should not be seen in the streets unless it's absolutely necessary.

[M.Dancer]

And some Liberals (including Mark Holland) agree with you, as do I. The army should not be seen in the streets unless it's absolutely necessary.

I think it would depend what their role would be...air surveilence...maritime security...bomb depsosal...

[lukin]

or they could have built a hotel and conference rooms Iqaluit for the affair and still saved a billion on security, no way AQ would have any means of getting in there...these meetings are really about photo ops for the PM, we're paying for pre election propaganda...

Are you serious??? Is that how you think??