G8 and G20 summit security $ 1.3 Billion costs a bargain

[Evening Star]

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.

I get what you're saying. At the same time, the difference between $679 million and $20 million (for the UK summit in 2009) seems hard to attribute to bookkeeping issues like this. I don't know much about accounting though. I will grant that our security was better than the UK's.

[Evening Star]

I mean, it does seem, looking at the article, that Pat Martin and Michael Ignatieff have pointed to specific instances of overspending.

[segnosaur]

I get what you're saying. At the same time, the difference between $679 million and $20 million (for the UK summit in 2009) seems hard to attribute to bookkeeping issues like this. I don't know much about accounting though. I will grant that our security was better than the UK's.

Actually, it seems pretty straight forward to me...

Lets say you have a security officer earning $500/day. As part of the summit, there's an extra expense of lets say $100/day (overtime, housing, etc.) Note that I just made up the numbers for illustrative purposes.

Now, when you try to determine summit costs, how much do you assume that officer 'costs'? One way is to assume he costs $600 (salary+expenses). On the other hand, you could assume that the officer was already on the government's payroll and you'd be paying them regardless, and so the cost for the summit is only the $100 (the costs directly related to them working at the summit.)

So, 2 different ways of accounting for the costs. Both are accurate in a way, but one value is 6 times higher than another.

When you compare summit costs, you have to make sure you're using the same methodology.... are you comparing actual costs, or just the 'added expenses' associated with the summit.

[Evening Star]

Fair enough, actually. I guess we'll see what Parliament makes of it.

[punked]

The biggest problem and the one no one is talking about is an old Liberal attack scared the conservatives so instead of using highly trained troops to provide security they used private firms. That is where your cost comes from, all this so the Liberals couldn't say I told you so and so the Conservatives wouldn't have to explain why there were troops in the streets.

[M.Dancer]

The biggest problem and the one no one is talking about is an old Liberal attack scared the conservatives so instead of using highly trained troops to provide security...

Troops are not trained to provide civil security...and do not on your life wish that they would be...they are trained for combat, is that what you would want? Combat troops facing protestors?

[Saipan]

We could use the money to register at least two hundred more duck guns instead.

[guyser]

Troops are not trained to provide civil security...

Are they by law allowed to?

Im pretty sure the States have a bill that prevents it.

[M.Dancer]

Are they by law allowed to?

Im pretty sure the States have a bill that prevents it.

I'm sure there are provisions in the emergency act....never the less I cannot recall ever seeing, hearing or knowing about any training being given to soldiers that would be aplicable in confronting a demonstration or a violent demonstration other that Fix Bayonets...

Squad will fix bayonets by numbers...

[guyser]

I'm sure there are provisions in the emergency act....

I would thinkso, as in the War Measures Act.

the law I was thinking of in the States is the Posse Comitatus Act.