g_bambino Posted February 17, 2011 Report Posted February 17, 2011 (edited) Canada was a different place in Trudeau's time. Until the FLQ came along, anyway, it was assumed that the PM could pretty much walk down the street with maybe one bodyguard and he'd be fine. Violence and terrorism have significantly grown since then, and the last time I recall reading about a head of government walking alone down a street was in Sweden in 1986. All valid points; I don't disagree at all that the prime minister requires personal security. It's just the amount of it now seems excessive; more for show than functional protection. I mean, $47 million, when the entire budget for Canada's monarchy - a fraction of which is constant security for ten lieutenant govenrors, the govenror general, and, when they're acting on behalf of Canada, the Queen, Prince Philip, and any other member of the Royal Family - is $50 million. That's astounding! ---- Sorry, I forgot that the $47 million cost is the total for two years' security for the PM and his family. So, the annual cost for his protection is about half the budget for the entire monarchy for one year. Less astounding, but still seems disproportionate. As the article notes, it's also "almost 70 times the price tag for protecting his entire cabinet and other VIPs". [+] Edited February 17, 2011 by g_bambino Quote
fellowtraveller Posted February 17, 2011 Report Posted February 17, 2011 As the article notes, it's also "almost 70 times the price tag for protecting his entire cabinet and other VIPs". The idea that all VIP security is provided for 1/70th the cost of protecting Harper is utter bullshit. Did they not just spend close to $1 billion protecting VIPs at the G20? Quote The government should do something.
William Ashley Posted February 17, 2011 Report Posted February 17, 2011 (edited) The idea that all VIP security is provided for 1/70th the cost of protecting Harper is utter bullshit. Did they not just spend close to $1 billion protecting VIPs at the G20? no that billion was to house the people to beat up protestors, a new approach to security. It is stemming from the whole school of american preemptive defence. Here is what a group in American has to say about it: http://www.asil.org/taskforce/oconnell.pdf As you can see because of 911, it was ok for security forces to act in securing downtown Toronto by beating up Canadian protesters and telling them to go home, to prevent potential issues to ongoing future security operations that might be required. As democracy and freedom must be protected. Hopefully you read and comprehend that the right way. Edited February 17, 2011 by William Ashley Quote I was here.
Scotty Posted February 18, 2011 Report Posted February 18, 2011 All valid points; I don't disagree at all that the prime minister requires personal security. It's just the amount of it now seems excessive; more for show than functional protection. I mean, $47 million, when the entire budget for Canada's monarchy - a fraction of which is constant security for ten lieutenant govenrors, the govenror general, and, when they're acting on behalf of Canada, the Queen, Prince Philip, and any other member of the Royal Family - is $50 million. That's astounding! ---- Sorry, I forgot that the $47 million cost is the total for two years' security for the PM and his family. So, the annual cost for his protection is about half the budget for the entire monarchy for one year. Less astounding, but still seems disproportionate. As the article notes, it's also "almost 70 times the price tag for protecting his entire cabinet and other VIPs". [+] I don't think the cabinet generally gets any protection. I don't know about lieutenant governors general, but aren't they a provincial responsibility? Don't know about an other VIPs. Who do we have? I would think that Harper is the obvious target. No one has threatened the GG as far as I know. He seems like a nice old guy and is completely non-controversial. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Smallc Posted February 18, 2011 Report Posted February 18, 2011 No one has threatened the GG as far as I know. He seems like a nice old guy and is completely non-controversial. None the less, the level of protection at Rideau Hall is impressive. Quote
Scotty Posted February 18, 2011 Report Posted February 18, 2011 None the less, the level of protection at Rideau Hall is impressive. Aside from the college kids dressed as soldiers in the summer I haven't noticed a great deal of police presence except at official occasions. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Smallc Posted February 18, 2011 Report Posted February 18, 2011 Aside from the college kids dressed as soldiers in the summer I haven't noticed a great deal of police presence except at official occasions. I was there on July 3rd, i believe, and there were several officers as well as a police car driving around....and no one was even there. There was also the security in the building. Now, the level of security isn't what it was for the Queen and the PM on Canada Day (500 RCMP officers) or what the PM gets regularly, but it's clear the GG needs security that isn't minimal, at least in the view of the RCMP. Quote
scorpio Posted February 18, 2011 Report Posted February 18, 2011 (edited) It is reported that Obama cost $200 million in security costs for his visit to mumbai - whether that is true or not. It's not true IMO. That mythical figure comes one Indian news agency quoting an anonymous source in Mumbai. Talk about stretching credulity to the max. Edited February 18, 2011 by scorpio Quote
Molly Posted February 18, 2011 Report Posted February 18, 2011 It does seem , for lack of a better word, awfully 'presidential'. After all, what is a prime minister ? The leader of a political party. Not unique. Easily replaced. Parliament is supreme, not the prime minister. The GG is the head of state, not the prime minister... Wa-ay too much focus where it doesn't really belong. Quote "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" — L. Frank Baum "For Conservatives, ministerial responsibility seems to be a temporary and constantly shifting phenomenon," -- Goodale
Smallc Posted February 18, 2011 Report Posted February 18, 2011 It does makes sense though, because the PM is the head of government. Obviously, that puts a great deal more attention on him (negative and positive) than the head of state or her representative. Quote
Molly Posted February 18, 2011 Report Posted February 18, 2011 Honestly, not to me. Is there any government form in use in any nation that is more... dispersed... and less focussed on a single, individual (despot ) than a parliamentary system? This is a government system of concensus, of the supremacy of the representatives sent to talk it over. The prime-ministerial figurehead can be replaced in a heartbeat by an acting prime minister, without the need for a bunch of consultation or pre-planning... and fairly regularly, is, without any particular fanfare. Heck, even the decision about who should step into the post is left undecided until such a transition is needed, and then, that person is chosen by a party caucus, without even the input of parliament. Even the speaker gets more scrutiny. The prime minister really isn't all that important to the process of government! Quote "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" — L. Frank Baum "For Conservatives, ministerial responsibility seems to be a temporary and constantly shifting phenomenon," -- Goodale
Saipan Posted February 18, 2011 Report Posted February 18, 2011 The GG is the head of state, not the prime minister... Wa-ay too much focus where it doesn't really belong. Exactly. Prime Minister can appoint another G.G., really a decoration, not elected official. Quote
Saipan Posted February 18, 2011 Report Posted February 18, 2011 The prime minister really isn't all that important to the process of government! As Chretien said; "I am the government!" Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.