G8 and G20 summit security $ 1.3 Billion costs a bargain

[Rick]

OTTAWA - Government officials say the G8 and G20 summits in June were a bargain at $1.3 billion.

Read more

I'm betting Canadians feel differently about this being a bargain.

It's just another example of how out of touch with reality and the pulse of the average working man this government truly is.

[segnosaur]

OTTAWA - Government officials say the G8 and G20 summits in June were a bargain at $1.3 billion.

Read more

It's just another example of how out of touch with reality and the pulse of the average working man this government truly is.

I wouldn't say its a bargain or a waste. Its just the cost of doing business in a global environment where such meetings between leaders are necessary. Perhaps we should wait until we actually get reports pointing to specific areas that the government overspent.

When Canada last hosted the G8 summit, we spent around $200 million. While that was less than the more recent G8/G20 summit, it also A: ran shorter, and B: involved fewer countries overall. If you look at things on a per-guest basis (adjusting for inflation) the costs are really not too far out of line with the previous summit.

The only alternative is to withdraw from organizations such as the G20, but since those organizations are rather influential it would likely be detrimental to do so.

[Rick]

Segnosaur, they paved over quarries to house OPP vehicles. They built a Fake Lake.

Enough said.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

There is no limit to what the government will spend our money on.

[Shakeyhands]

The only alternative is to withdraw from organizations such as the G20, but since those organizations are rather influential it would likely be detrimental to do so.

The alternative is to not waste our hard earned tax dollars on stupid crap around the Summits, like raising sidewalks or putting in public washrooms and hour away etc...

[guyser]

I received ....

1)new driveway at Community Hall

2)New washroom with a lounging deck at the beach (really..?.. lounge outside washrooms???)

3)fresh coat of paint on town structures

4)new olympic size pad of ice

5)new planter boxes that would house a small family

.....nope, no waste there.

[segnosaur]

Segnosaur, they paved over quarries to house OPP vehicles. They built a Fake Lake.

Enough said.

Ah yes, the famous fake lake. The one that actually cost $57,000, or to put it in perspective, less than 0.006% of the summit costs. Heck, I wish all government projects only wasted 0.006% of their budget. So what exactly do you think happened to the other 99.994% of the summit costs?

I suppose you think the summit would have been free if they had just forced all news reporters to use blank rooms with the walls painted white.

Oh, by the way, just so you know, the Pavilion where that "fake lake" was located was actually jointly funded by both the federal and provincial (Liberal) governments.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/torontog20summit/article/819841--g20-media-centre-with-fake-lake-to-cost-1-9m

[segnosaur]

The alternative is to not waste our hard earned tax dollars on stupid crap around the Summits, like raising sidewalks or putting in public washrooms and hour away etc...

If you have specific accusations for misspending fine, lets here some details. Like, where it occurred, what the government's rational was for spending it, and exactly how much money we're talking. As I pointed out before, the "fake lake" was such a tiny cost in proportion to the rest of the summit that it can hardly be blamed for the price tag.

[nicky10013]

If you have specific accusations for misspending fine, lets here some details. Like, where it occurred, what the government's rational was for spending it, and exactly how much money we're talking. As I pointed out before, the "fake lake" was such a tiny cost in proportion to the rest of the summit that it can hardly be blamed for the price tag.

No, but in general when we have a government who spends that kind of money on a gimmick no one cares about, well...it should be made illegal for the CPC to call themselves fiscally responsible. Hypocrisy is what it is.

[Rick]

If you have specific accusations for misspending fine, lets here some details. Like, where it occurred, what the government's rational was for spending it, and exactly how much money we're talking. As I pointed out before, the "fake lake" was such a tiny cost in proportion to the rest of the summit that it can hardly be blamed for the price tag.

Ok, how about the almost $2 million spent on tent rentals.

Contractor	  Description	Value	        Procurement Process
Advanced Tent Rental	  mess tents	$1,097,986.00	RCMP MERX
Advanced Tent Rental Ltd. Tent Rental	$800,000.00	Competitive
Records 1-2 of 2

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/09/24/f-g20-spending-database.html?appSession=423179807036279#ixzz12pho1yex

[DrGreenthumb]

If you have specific accusations for misspending fine, lets here some details. Like, where it occurred, what the government's rational was for spending it, and exactly how much money we're talking. As I pointed out before, the "fake lake" was such a tiny cost in proportion to the rest of the summit that it can hardly be blamed for the price tag.

The list of Conservative gov't waste is long, but one of the most ridiculous items was 14,000 dollars on "glow sticks" These things add up, and Canada is not in a position to waste money on stupid shit like that.

[segnosaur]

Ok, how about the almost $2 million spent on tent rentals.

Contractor	  Description	Value	        Procurement Process
Advanced Tent Rental	  mess tents	$1,097,986.00	RCMP MERX
Advanced Tent Rental Ltd. Tent Rental	$800,000.00	Competitive
Records 1-2 of 2

The second entry in that lists specifies that it was done through a competitive bid process. If you think $800k was too much for that particular bid, then why exactly do you think other companies weren't lined up to charge much less? Or do you have any proof that the bid was somehow rigged?

[The_Squid]

How come other countries kept the costs down?

Szarkozy was adamant that the costs will be one-tenth of what Canada spent.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/g8-g20/news/sarkozy-says-his-g8g20-will-cost-one-tenth-of-canadas/article1619637/

It was a boondoggle in the worst way...

Edited October 20, 2010 by The_Squid

[dre]

I wouldn't say its a bargain or a waste. Its just the cost of doing business in a global environment where such meetings between leaders are necessary. Perhaps we should wait until we actually get reports pointing to specific areas that the government overspent.

The only alternative is to withdraw from organizations such as the G20, but since those organizations are rather influential it would likely be detrimental to do so.

Theres nothing saying you have to have massive lavish parties with 10's of thousands of people in order to have a global economy. The majority of business done there could have been done over the phone or in private meetings between folks in charge of various different areas. You could still have a meeting with the leaders and smaller delegations for a tiny fraction of the cost.

The only alternative is to withdraw from organizations such as the G20, but since those organizations are rather influential it would likely be detrimental to do so.

No the alternative is to make sure those organizations behave responsibly, and practice what they preach which right now is debt reduction and spending restraint.

[Rick]

The second entry in that lists specifies that it was done through a competitive bid process. If you think $800k was too much for that particular bid, then why exactly do you think other companies weren't lined up to charge much less? Or do you have any proof that the bid was somehow rigged?

I believe that there was no true competition and that the same company was given both jobs due to their having already been given the first one by the RCMP.

It still raises the question of why there was a need for $2 million in tents?

[Rick]

Theres nothing saying you have to have massive lavish parties with 10's of thousands of people in order to have a global economy. The majority of business done there could have been done over the phone or in private meetings between folks in charge of various different areas. You could still have a meeting with the leaders and smaller delegations for a tiny fraction of the cost.

No the alternative is to make sure those organizations behave responsibly, and practice what they preach which right now is debt reduction and spending restraint.

Precisely.

It was an absurd waste of our tax dollars.

[segnosaur]

How come other countries kept the costs down?

Szarkozy was adamant that the costs will be one-tenth of what Canada spent.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/g8-g20/news/sarkozy-says-his-g8g20-will-cost-one-tenth-of-canadas/article1619637/

First of all, perhaps the most important part of your post is the use of the phrase "will be"... the French summit hasn't occurred yet, so there's no guarantee what the final costs will be.

More importantly though, there may be differences in the way the countries account for spending. For example, holding a summit in a more populous country may reduce costs if they have better security infrastructure in place already (e.g. more military bases in the area of the summit). Furthermore, some countries may count all personnel costs as "summit costs", as opposed to just overtime costs.

[segnosaur]

The majority of business done there could have been done over the phone...

Possibly. Or possibly not...

From: http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/torontog20summit/article/822478--g20-summit-why-face-time-still-matters

As part of her doctoral research, Maggie Wenjing Liu studied the effectiveness of face-to-face meetings compared with video conferencing and even situations where people were in the same room but sitting back-to-back, unable to see each other. She found that face-to-face meetings were more effective in producing tangible outcomes and can’t be replaced by technology.

...

Geoffrey Leonardelli, a professor at the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto, agrees that meeting in person produces a sense of a shared mission that’s hard to replicate over the phone.

...or in private meetings between folks in charge of various different areas. You could still have a meeting with the leaders and smaller delegations for a tiny fraction of the cost.

Which of course would make it significantly more difficult to reach any sort of large group consensus if it has to be "built up" from smaller groups.

Oh, and what about the time that would be wasted having our leaders running around meeting in small groups, rather than in a single large meeting?

[segnosaur]

I believe that there was no true competition and that the same company was given both jobs due to their having already been given the first one by the RCMP.

I see. You believe, therefore its true.

You'll have to excuse me if I am a little skeptical when you base everything on beliefs. At this point you have provided no evidence that the same company was given both jobs, and even if it did, that it wasn't the lowest cost bid to begin with. But as long as you have your beliefs, well, color me unconvinced.

It still raises the question of why there was a need for $2 million in tents?

You know, to be honest, I have no idea. However, the thing is, I doubt you do either.

I've never actually organized a large scale event like this. I can imagine they would have needed some facilities like tents for basic things like first aid, food, etc. (And having everything outside would be risky in the event of bad weather.) There were a lot of security personnel, so the needed infrastructure would be large.

Until someone can point out specific reasons why the tents were not needed, then the only thing we can do is question whether the bidding processes used in the acquisition were done fairly.

Edited October 20, 2010 by segnosaur

[Evening Star]

FWIW, this document gives some rough comparative costs between different summits. I'm not sure if it's by U of T students or faculty: http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:G77syU18H_EJ:www.g7.utoronto.ca/evaluations/factsheet/factsheet_costs.pdf+g20+summit+cost&hl=en&gl=ca&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgbDf8EqF4sfGiicHMN9_Sh85WF-shoacH86wQqh6lYxOhfj-KQqE-WQYjnjgBK7Q_yaS2HcoR5sQAWOi-Z91OjzLd1WDZYT3QNMvv0uQH1o9-MqviIs-l7QaHMjfE_VVJld0qN&sig=AHIEtbRQw5u6LzJRT0wYvzSKjbEH9H1UrA

While their estimated G8 summit costs don't seem too wildly out of line with the costs of other summits, the G20 costs do look high. Segnosaur is right that I can't point to specific instances of overspending since I don't have the actual budget or know the typical costs of the individual items. Still, it does seem that we spent more than other countries have and that, despite this, our security was still less effective than it should have been.

[Rick]

I see. You believe, therefore its true.

You'll have to excuse me if I am a little skeptical when you base everything on beliefs. At this point you have provided no evidence that the same company was given both jobs, and even if it did, that it wasn't the lowest cost bid to begin with. But as long as you have your beliefs, well, color me unconvinced.

You know, to be honest, I have no idea. However, the thing is, I doubt you do either.

I've never actually organized a large scale event like this. I can imagine they would have needed some facilities like tents for basic things like first aid, food, etc. (And having everything outside would be risky in the event of bad weather.) There were a lot of security personnel, so the needed infrastructure would be large.

Until someone can point out specific reasons why the tents were not needed, then the only thing we can do is question whether the bidding processes used in the acquisition were done fairly.

Well until someone can explain why there was a need to waste $ 2million on tents for meetings which were held indoors at a lavish and large resort (Deerhurst) and in downtown Toronto's 5 star hotels, convention centre and surrounding buildings I can only question why anyone would bother to defend such wasteful spending.

Of course, those who would defend it also have no problem with defending the waste of money spent on building a fake lake.

Edited October 20, 2010 by Rick

[segnosaur]

Well until someone can explain why there was a need to waste $ 2million on tents for meetings which were held indoors

Ummm... perhaps because many of the security personnel would have been stationed outside the hotel, and would have needed infrastructure?

...at a lavish and large resort (Deerhurst) and in downtown Toronto's 5 star hotels,

Your right... because whenever you have the leaders of the free world show up, you want to have them stay at the local Econolodge. Maybe the next time Obama visits Canada we can find a hotel that has an hourly rate. I can lend them my Honda Civic for use in the motorcade.

...convention centre and surrounding buildings I can only question why anyone would bother to defend such wasteful spending.

You see, some of us believe in a thing called skepticism. That means you actually base your opinions on this little thing called evidence. At this point, I have not seen evidence suggesting that either the money was well spent, or was wasted. So far all I have are the expenses of previous Canadian summits, which, like I said, fall roughly in line with what was spend in the summer.

I know its not as much fun as starting with a premise (i.e. "The government is wasteful") and specifically searching out evidence to support that predefined assumption.

[segnosaur]

Segnosaur is right that I can't point to specific instances of overspending since I don't have the actual budget or know the typical costs of the individual items. Still, it does seem that we spent more than other countries have...

But as I have pointed out, it may be a case where Canada is just reporting the numbers differently.

For example, from: http://www.canadiansecuritymag.com/Top-Stories/Expert-defends-G20-security-spend.html

Some have suggested that the U.S. government did not disclose the true costs of the G20 and that Canadian officials have chosen to be completely transparent. For example, intelligence services provided by CSIS are included in the cost, but other countries have not necessarily included those services in their final tally.

[guyser]

As far as the tents go, I can see that number being pretty close to accountable.

I saw the number of military personnel, all needing a plce to sleep (why not bring military tents??) along with all the other security personnel.

They had set up almost a month in advance to carry out re-con stuff , as I know they were in the woods not far from me.

Then add tents for dining, relaxing and so on, so my take is the money wasnt wasted, at least for tents.

Tons of other money was , that i know .

Edited October 20, 2010 by guyser

[segnosaur]

Ah yes, the famous fake lake. The one that actually cost $57,000,

and your link says....

The document estimates the price tag for the project at $1.9 million, jointly funded by the federal and Ontario governments.

not sure what you are trying to show from that

Well, first of all I thought it was pretty obvious... I was trying to show that the Ontario government was involved in at least some of the decision making regarding the conference. If you want to blame the (federal) conservatives, you should also be prepared to blame the (provincial) liberals. All of the claims that the Liberals are somehow superior fiscal managers should be seen in that light.

Secondly, the reason for the different costs is because the $1.9 million was for a complete pavilion, of which the "fake lake" was just a small part. Media attending the summit required some facilities for reporting on the events. Now, there were certain items that were set up in order to put Canada in a good light (the fake lake, wide and food tastings, etc.) The costs of these items might be seen as "marketing".