Is $1 billion too high a price for G8/G20 summit security? -

Is $1 billion too high a price for G8/G20 summit security?



Is $1 billion too high a price for G8/G20 summit security?

  1. With all of the economic stress on Canadian Taxpayers, 1BILLION DOLLARS for security????? Those people have some awfully powerful secrets to keep hidden…..

  2. For the folks that picked "No, it's the cost of doing business today," I have some things to sell you.

  3. I'm with 'strass' above. $14 million per hour to have the cops submit Toronto and some of its citizens to a state of fear and repression for 3 days seems a tad excessive. It cost London about $500,000 per hour. Someone's having a laugh, innit?

    • i think they shoulkd have these summits on ascension island in the middle of tha atlantic ocean where they can control who gets in and the security bill would be about 10 bucks enough said

      • I'm with you!

      • Tony you are – Brilliant! And even better: That could be the permanent home for these "G Summit" things!
        Now, all you have to do is run for MP, get elected, and use your brain….
        Our currently elected pack is surely not using theirs. But you knew that, already.
        Also: We need a permanent home for the Olympics, too. This constant boondoggle every 4 years, sucks the boot.
        Sorry, Tony, but at the moment, I do not vote for Canada being one of the permanent hosts.

  4. I think the G8 and the G 20 should be audited after the fact by Sheila Fraser. This amount of money is outrageous, and what will we get for it. ???

  5. Canada is not the first to have these kinds of complaints. Japan spent 60 billion yen (about 600 million dollars) in 2008 ( on just the G-8 summit; Italy also spent 600 million on the G-8 summit in 2009 ( When you account for the fact that Canada is hosting two summits, the cost figures are in line with previous totals (London's 2005 costs were lower by an order of magnitude, but I can't tell whether that is due to different accounting).

    What is Canada really paying for? Well, if we want to be a major player internationally, footing these kinds of bills is pretty much the price of admission. The issues being debated at this particular summit are pretty important too – a global bank tax, for instance, is a trillion dollar kind of question. As the host (actually summits) we get the ability to set the agenda. That is a tremendously valuable commodity, since it means we can order agenda items based on our interests. Moreover, hosting the summit means that large numbers of international delegations will be in Canada, giving Canadian businesses, NGOs and government officials a significant opportunity to negotiate deals and influence once another.

    Are there ways to reduce the cost of the summit? Possibly, and the government should certainly try to do so (though at least 100 million of the cost figures being reported is a contingency fund). At the same time, the security of the leaders of the 20 largest economies of the world (and thousands of delegations) is pretty darn important.

    • Sorry, 2005 was in Gleneagles, not London. Perhaps the financial crisis has substantially raised the profile and stakes of G-8 summits.


    all those TOYS and no way to use them

    1 billion $$$$ for a NO show

    • Again: More brilliance. Bob, you've got to join Tony!
      Imagine the looks on the faces of these walking egos (Harper & Co.) if we just ignored them!
      Summit Security: 1 Billion… (Altho', as Chretien famously said: "What's a Billion?")
      Look on the Leaders' faces when they are ignored: PRICELESS!
      For all else, there's a credit card!
      We could all use the humor at seeing their paranoid little egos deflated.

  7. and heavy labourers have to work for it. Is it not slavery?

  8. pure slavery for tax payers

  9. when we spend $1B, how many job will be created after this submit, how much money will be made after this "investment"?

    • Um: How many jobs after the billion is spent? Probably None.
      How much return from the investment? Probably None.
      But as you and I foot the bill, we will have the satisfaction that we kept all the little word leaders safe.
      I see.
      Not enough in it for you. I quite agree. Don't these people have 24 hr a day security already, anyway?
      Oh, well, it is only some $25/Canuck. Or about $8.33/ day for each of us.
      And per year, that would be roughly $3,041.67 for each of us.
      Don;t worry: They are going to send us the bill. HST!

  10. The whole thing is an absolute waste of time. Nothing comes of this

  11. Regarding the costs to host at Gleneagles in the UK;
    The UK is already very highly policed. Diverting resources to a summit would not necessarily incur large additional costs.

  12. Here goes the taxpayer money again !

  13. Why not send underlings to these conferences at a fraction of the cost . The leaders could decide important issues on a conference call at a later date . No expence , no security problems . no riots .

  14. Come on people , these costs are outrageous !!!

    Why not charter a cruise ship and have these meetings, out there off the coast. Warships could then, have marine exercises at the same time.

    • Who says Bob and Tony have all the brains?
      You have just had a fantastic idea!
      And it is cheaper than re-doing that island up every year!
      And each year, a different cruise line gets to host. Spread the money about. And hey? Doesn't Paul Martin own a cruise line? Doesn't he have experience with this "leadership ego security stuff?"
      And with luck… a warship could have an accident.
      Why is not Macleans polled for answers to the tough questions? We're already doing better than the G8!
      I honestly think we could come up with answers at least as good as what we will get from the politicos.

  15. It is just pomp and circumstance-what gets accomplished?? what issues are resolved?? who benefits other than the leaders that attend?? What a shameful waste when people have lost their jobs and their homes!!! WHERE IS THE LEADERSHIP? trying to maintain power and thinking in 2 year blocks. If they thought in terms of bettering the world …they would be taking a 5-10 year horizon. Power and maintaining it is the motivating factor isn't it STEVIE?

  16. If it wasn't for all the left wing whackos and anarchists, there wouldn't be the need for so much security. So blame them not the government, or if you're one of them, you made your bed, now sleep in it. Money well spent to protect the world's leaders if you ask me. I know a couple of coppers in the area and as for the cost yes it's high, but cops aren't cheap these days. Base wage $40-45/hr, but they'll all be on various forms of overtime for these events….so times their base rate by half or double. Plus cost of accommodations in hotels they're being put up in, meals, etc, etc.

    Like I said, blame the left, they're the ones who started protesting at these meetings and destroying everything in sight when they have the chance.

    • I agree whole heartedly!!

    • Yeah…leave it to AJ01, a right-wing 'whacko', to start pointing the fingers of blame at the left. Please…get stuffed, fool.
      Better that you should ask: What do these leaders ever accomplish at these G8/G20 summits? These events are way too costly, and they're especially so during the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression! Reality check: If these events accomplish anything, I'm certain that the same results could be achieved via video-conferencing, or by some other means…means that would not even cost taxpayers $100,000!! Spending a billion dollars to protect and fetes a gaggle of world leaders when there is debilitating poverty all over the world is simply wrong and obscene! Smarten up.

  17. Blaming the left wing whackos, AJ0I, as you called them is outrageous to say the least. All this high security began with 911. I think if the meetings were held elsewhere in our VAST conutry, the cost could be half or less of what it is. Or maybe not hold it at all. After all, Mr. Harper is visiting all the leaders even before they get here. Sure getting his dibs in before the big fall from grace. And he's doing a p/poor job of those visits to boot. He's a disgrace to our country. I guess we're all waiting for the right time to say our goodbyes.

  18. In this world of new technology there is such a thing as video conferencing. I am sure that someone in our government and the other countries involved have heard of it.

  19. They should have looked into "GOTOMEETING.COM"

    Would hgave saved a mint -for all countires involved. It's on for an introductory rate of $49.95 a month for unliited meetings. Surely they all have computers, & people who can use them….Even MPs could use them to reduce costs – taxpayers have paid enough for their computers, blackberrrys & other internet costs. Or do they know how to do anything on them (like the politician on Celebrity Apprentice?)

  20. Jean Chrétien hosted the G8 in the Rockies because the City Ottawa didn't want to disruption and associated costs. Toronto's Mayor should have asked Harper to do the same.

  21. I don't know much about politics, but I get out of school 2 days early b/c the protests are close to my school and some ppl are worried about that. :)

  22. Another crappy Mac Leans poll ….I choose both
    1) no more stupid summits
    3) investigate

  23. There wwould be a big hue & cry– if we didn't spend this on it—as the terrorists in our own country–can't behave–& if something happened 2 anyone– the same people that disagree would keep on cryng etc. etc.We need these conferences–2 keep countries –talking!!!!

  24. Thousands of unimportant people from many countries will have luxurious holly-day paid by Canadian taxpayers .You and me! Leaders have all ready made statements ,so whole meeting is a very expensive show .Should not happen again !!

  25. A needless expense of puffing up and showing tail feathers. I wish I had the countries coffers to spend as I deem fit. If we stopped this we are the best contributers to the world for one year we would be out of national debt. Hire some single moms to do the budget for the country.

  26. It seems clear to me that the Liberal party is really two parties. One (the Turnerites) is a fiscally conservative, decentralizing party largely rooted in English Canada. The other (the Trudeauites) is a centre-left ultra-federalist party with a strong base in Quebec. The alliance of these two groups worked well at maintaining national unity, but is increasingly incoherent in a time of left-right politics that demands clear positions over "King's mixed pickles".

    Increasingly it appears to me that the Turnerites have a natural political home in the Conservative party, while the Trudeauites have a natural home in some party of the united left. It could happen quickly, if say, the party were to preannounce a coalition, or if there was large-scale defection to the Conservative party by disaffected Turnerites. Or it could happen more slowly, as each Liberal half is slowly worn down election after election by an increasingly moderate Tory party and an increasingly successful NDP/Green party.

    • It depends on how quickly for the Tories this perchanced-increasing moderation you hypothesize happens. At the moment, the not-always-in-your-face-but-still-very-tangible social conservatism of the Tories is more than enough to keep otherwise fiscally conservative Liberals staying put.

  27. Canada is known for protesting but not violence .To spend 1 billion dollars by this governament when they are cutting grants to so many deserving causes is the pinnacle of their irresponsibility.

  28. "No, it's the cost of doing business today"

  29. " No, it's the cost of doing business today"

    If it's the cost of doing business then business should pay for it. Not the taxpayers.

    The previous post jumped off the page before I was finished.

  30. There is some slight of hand bookkeeping here as there was at the Olympics. The RCMP and the army are already on our payroll so if they were not guarding the summit they would just be doing something else for the same money.

  31. Everyone else ie taxpayers, have been cutting back on things, while our services have been being cut or cutback and they are spending $1billion for these summits? Insane!

    Tell you what, pay me $1 million and I can cut alot of costs for these summits and cut the costs of security.

    I believe we still have alot of reserve military still in Canada, they can start by using them instead of paying out over time to already over worked and stretched police forces and let them go do their jobs of fighting crime instead of being body guards for cars.

    Then again, why can't they do this meeting by an internet conference?
    Then we wouldn't need to provide the security, everyone can provide their own!

  32. Maybe we could hire London to look after security for us in the future. Oh no that would stop political pocket lining or would it?.

  33. With $1 BILLION dollars, I could fix the problems in Canadian healthcare, education, food supplies, a good chunk of the environment, and probably a few more…luckily for those in power, I don't have access to a billion dollars.

    They get to continue to plunder the people, and the peopple continue to believe that the probnlems they cause can only be solved by giving them more money to cause more problems, and of course, in turn, new problems will crop up that need more of our money…it's a truly neverending cycle that will only be stopped once we collectively see that what we are allowing to happen is getting worse at every turn.

    When do we wake up and stop paying for our own destruction?

  34. That money could definately be put to better use helping clean up the oil spill. We're in the midst of an environmental crisis and as far as I am concerned, "security" won't matter if we have nothing to keep secure.

  35. Surely there must be a cheaper way of ensuring the safety of the participants at these summits.
    This talk of people being upset seeing soldiers in the streets is crazy. Why do not the organizers admit it is another example of pandering to "Elites" in this country who say it would not be politically acceptable to have soldiers with rifles providing security in the streets of our communities.
    If Canada plans on hosting another summit in the future, provide the participants with exposure to our majestic geography by holding it in a setting other than our major cities. Security costs would be much less. The leaders could be suitably accommodated although the hangers-on may have to rough it.

  36. Can anyone tell me why London only cost $50 million?

  37. How come they can find ONE BILLION+ for a big party,but when it comes to HEALTHCARE OR PENSIONS , they have no money.I guess at these times they have to support the economy……………..big industry and oil