Government Operations Committee on Oct. 19th, 2010

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

You started with $249 million?

[Peter McGovern]

That was for the two meetings.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

That was the budget you started with for the two meetings. How come it ended up at $230 million?

[Peter McGovern]

That was not the budget we started with because we had to—

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

No?

[Peter McGovern]

Like Mr. Elcock, we prepared briefs for submission to cabinet for G8 preparations. At the end of September 2009, when the G20 summit was announced, we redid the process and we added the G20 budget. The two budgets together, from my end, come to $249 million.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

How can you estimate that it would cost about $240 million in total to organize those two summits when you do not even know today where you were going at the time? At the time, we asked Mr. Elcock what costs would be involved given the presence of the provincial police, and he still does not know. So, if the organization is asked those questions, how come they were not asked? How come you have no budget? How come you did not stick to any budget?

[Peter McGovern]

The G20 announcement was made by the Prime Minister in Korea in November. Starting right then, we began to prepare documents in order to draw up our budgets. We worked with experts and they took part in the budgeting process. Of course, we used some of the fundamentals that had already been used for the G8, and, when possible, we doubled the work in order to guarantee the success of the G20. It was the same kind of process for the security, but that is not what I am talking about.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

I bet someone somewhere will talk to me about security because we have to talk about it; it cost $930 million. We are talking about $930 million, but we don’t even know what the costs were yet.

Another issue is even more relevant. Considering that a provincial police officer costs four times more than someone from National Defence, why didn't you want to have people from the Canadian Forces there? You said the following in your document: “Given the nature of the Huntsville site, reinforcements from out of area would not arrive on time in the event of a major incident.” If you thought you needed reinforcements, why didn't you talk to Department of National Defence, which is four times less expensive than the provincial police? How come you did not consider that option and hire those people in this case?

[Ward Elcock]

Mr. Chairman, I think there's a misunderstanding at the base of the question. There was a number, which was bandied around in a number of newspaper stories, I think, that suggested there had been a budgetary amount of roughly $179 million. Perhaps it was because it was in a committee of the other place, but I said at the time, immediately after the tabling of supplementary estimates (C), which contained that number of $179 million, that $179 million was in no way the final budget for security for the G-8 and the G-20.

The reality is, when you're planning a major security event like the G-8 and the G-20, until you actually have a plan you don't know precisely what the cost will be. We found that out in the case of the Olympics. The Olympic estimate done by a group in British Columbia turned out to be wildly inaccurate, and for the same reason we did not announce a budgetary cost for the G-8 and the G-20 until we in fact had a plan that we could cost out.

As I said earlier, the estimated budgetary cost was $930 million, with a $50 million contingency fund. As I also said, we don't know what the final cost will be. I have no reason to believe that it will be in excess of that $930 million. In fact, I would expect it to probably be less, on the numbers I have seen so far. They are only partial returns, but I would expect it probably to be less.

In the case of the Ontario Provincial Police and the Toronto Police, they will submit their numbers, those numbers will be audited as required under the public safety program, and then we will get closer to what a final budgetary cost will be.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Elcock, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but time is ticking away.

You said that you did not know around how much the organization of the G8 and G20 summits might cost. But you already had experience with the Olympic Games, which were not that long before the G8 and G20.

I believe there must be some similarities between security for the Olympic Games and security for the G20. I feel we should be able to apply the experience from one event to organizing a good deal of the other event. It is important to have an idea of what the costs might be. You cannot give an envelope with a blank slip inside, without any figures at the bottom, for this type of operation. You must at least have an idea and act as administrators.

You really are administrators. So I cannot understand how you decided to call in the provincial police force, which costs four times more than the Canadian army, and to build communications towers because there was no other way to communicate. I just cannot wrap my brain around the fact that you held 29 planning meetings to come to the conclusion that you were in the dark and would just play it by ear.

That means that you used Canadians’ money haphazardly and freely. The envelope was open and you used it telling yourselves that it would cost what it cost. You had no budget forecasts prepared. There was $230 million and we're talking about $179 million. We are at $400 million now, but we don't know what the rough total is because you are unable to tell us.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Unfortunately, you've got about 15 seconds left.

[Ward Elcock]

Mr. Chairman, let me just deal with the question of why not use the Canadian Forces. The suggestion has been made on a number of occasions and I have responded in earlier interviews once or twice to the question.

The use of the Canadian Forces in situations where you'd have armed soldiers dealing with civilians is entirely and utterly inappropriate. It would have been a mistake to do it. It has been a mistake in many cases in which countries have used armed military forces. They're neither trained nor have the capacity for dealing with civilians. It would be inappropriate, and for that reason we didn't use the Canadian Forces. And they would not have wanted us to--

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Elcock.

Mr. Calandra, eight minutes.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Look, I represent a riding just north of Toronto, Oak Ridges—Markham. I know our York Regional Police were also part of the security operations that went into the G-8 and the G-20. One of the things that we always talk about in the Toronto context is that Toronto is a world-class city capable of handling world-class events. And I would suggest that the entire GTA is actually a world-class area.

One of the things that I did hear from my local business people was that this gave them an unprecedented opportunity to showcase the entire GTA area, especially the exporters. Their ability to connect back to the countries where they were exporting to, to showcase Toronto and all the positive things it had--and Canada--and to reflect on some of the successes that Canada has had over the last little while was an unprecedented value to them.

I'm wondering, despite all of the things we're hearing from the opposition, if there is any feedback that you can provide with respect to how the summit has been perceived outside of Canada.

[Peter McGovern]

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

I'll begin by addressing some of the benefits for the City of Toronto. With the Olympics and the G-8/G-20 being held in Canada, it very much was Canada's year, with the eyes of the world focused on us.

In terms of a message I received from Toronto tourism, they indicated to me that the hospitality industry in Toronto profited to the tune of about $50 million over the course of that particular weekend.

As I mentioned, there were over 3,000 delegates accompanying the world leaders to the summits. There were 3,700 journalists who were in Toronto who reported on Canada as the most successful of the economies, or certainly the most successful of the economies in the G-8, in terms of the leadership that was being provided by the Prime Minister and his team. It was an unprecedented opportunity for Canada to showcase itself as a high-tech, high-innovation society.

So that was an element in terms of the vision we had in the planning of these particular meetings and having these people here. So yes, it was a success in that sense.

In terms of the substance of the meeting, our colleagues in Foreign Affairs would be better able to address that. But I think, based on what I saw at the G-8 and at the G-20, yes, it was a success.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

We have a lot of discussions at this committee with respect to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, and it strikes me that, on occasion, when he agrees with the opposition he's great and when he doesn't agree with the opposition his findings are just set aside. I wonder if you could tell me, with respect to this, again...if you could go over some of the accountability measures that went into the pre-budgeting, and since then with respect to the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the Auditor General.

[Ward Elcock]

Mr. Chairman, this goes back to an earlier question I was asked about the cost of holding a summit like the G-8 and the G-20. The Parliamentary Budget Officer made the point, and I think it's a fair one and it is true of Canada, that many other countries have, in comparison to Canada, a much greater security infrastructure, if one is thinking specifically of security events like the G-8 and the G-20. The reality is, if you already have all of the equipment, if you have all of the people, it is much easier to deploy, it's much less expensive to do. That, for us, in some sense, because we do all of that de novo, we do it from the beginning--we have to bring in the people from across the country and we have to buy the equipment, or rent the equipment in most cases, for the G-8 and the G-20--makes it a more expensive event than would otherwise be the case.

Certainly, in the context of accountability, we provided the Parliamentary Budget Officer with everything we had that he had requested. In some cases, we simply didn't have the numbers. In the case of the Auditor General, although my office has now closed up, right after the completion of the G-8 and the G-20, we spent some considerable time with them trying to provide them with numbers and background so that they could go on with their work. In point of fact, they'll be going back, and have been going back, to the various departments and agencies to understand the specifics of specific contracts or specific purchases or specific rentals, rather than in our files, which were much more dedicated to the coordination of all of that rather than managing each one of those specific contracts.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

I was lucky enough to attend the G-8 in L'Aquila, which actually turned into a G-35 because the Italian Prime Minister had invited a lot more people there. What struck me about that one was, as you mentioned--I obviously had never been to one of these before. There were close to 10,000 people attending this. You mentioned the security infrastructure in Italy. The policing started with the municipal police, the paramilitary, the carabinieri. The Guardia di Finanza was also in attendance. The military was in attendance. The forestry police were brought in to secure this. The event took place on a newly completed military base that was constructed for the Guardia di Finanza.

There's been a lot of talk with respect to the location of this event in Toronto. I know some people have suggested that Toronto is incapable of hosting this type of an event. I suppose I'm the only member on this committee, with the exception of the chair, who's from the GTA. I think it was an extraordinary event, and the people of Toronto should be proud not only of what they accomplished, but of what the police force has accomplished.

I wonder about two things. Did we respect the municipal and provincial policing contracts when we did this? Obviously they have certain provisions for their working hours. Did we respect those contracts, as I think we should have and I hope we did?

Is there a military base in Toronto or close to Toronto that could have housed this? It has been discussed that we should have housed this on the CNE grounds. I've lived in the Toronto area my entire life. I do not know of a hotel on the CNE grounds that could accommodate 10,000 people. If you know of one, I'd appreciate it. I've asked consistently for people to explain to me how we could house this in a location without accommodations, and nobody has told me how....

I guess my questions are these. Did we respect the policing contracts, not only of the Toronto police...? Did the Toronto police and the command of the OPP and the RCMP do exactly what we expected them to do and police their city as effectively as we could have ever hoped they could have done?

Are there other alternatives? If we do this in the future, outside of Toronto, Montreal, or Vancouver, where could we host a G-20 that could house 10,000 people?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Elcock, regrettably, members seem to leave very little time for responses to their last questions.

[Ward Elcock]

Mr. Chair, there are two things.

In terms of the municipal and provincial police, although there was an integrated security unit, each police force was responsible for its own area of jurisdiction. They would have incurred in those areas whatever expenses they would normally incur in maintaining their operations. In terms of numbers, they will ultimately bill the Government of Canada for the total incremental costs for the G-8 and G-20 event. Those will be audited, as I said, when they come in.

In terms of the L'Aquila summit, I didn't actually visit the L'Aquila summit. I visited the site where they were originally going to hold the summit, which was a considerably different and rather more expensive venture than the L'Aquila site. That summit was moved during a very short period before the G-8 and the G-20 occurred.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you for that answer, Mr. Elcock.

Go ahead, Mr. Martin.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Canadians are reeling with shock and horror at how anyone in good conscience could spend $1.3 billion for a three-day meeting. That's the feedback we're getting from our communities, because no matter how you shake it up, it has all the appearances of wild, irresponsible, reckless spending, in light of the largest deficit Canada's ever faced.

Specifically, whose bright idea was it to build a fake lake on the shores of a real lake? How did we ever arrive at that idea, and who was pushing for that?

[Peter McGovern]

Mr. Chair, the fake lake was actually an idea that I think was a wild success. The interesting dimension of that is that--

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

We were a laughingstock, Mr. Chair.