Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to congratulate you on taking the chair of this committee; it certainly indicates the faith that committee members have in your qualifications and abilities. I don't believe I've had the opportunity to appear in front of you as chair of this committee.
In any event, it's a pleasure to appear before the committee to discuss security costs for the G-8 and G-20 summits.
As you indicated, I am joined here today by very qualified individuals, who will be able to provide the committee with the details for many of the questions they may ask. They are senior officials who were involved with the preparation and provision of the G-8 and G-20 security, and I'm confident they'll be able to answer any questions you might have on the operational details of these summits, including the specific costs.
The Public Safety portfolio had a number of partners that were involved in the security for the G-8 and G-20 summits. Altogether, the Public Safety portfolio received $790.1 million, which is approximately 85% of the security budget of $930 million.
Funding to the agencies was as follows: $507.5 million for the RCMP to conduct planning and operations related to policing and security at the two summits; $278.3 million for Public Safety to administer the security cost framework policy and reimburse security partners for the incremental and extraordinary security-related costs they incurred; $3.1 million for the Canadian Security Intelligence Service to provide intelligence support related to threats to the national security of Canada, including the G-8 and G-20 summits; $1.2 million for the Canada Border Services Agency to support activities associated with the provision of incremental border services and critical program support for the G-8 and G-20 summits.
These important investments were necessary given the scope and magnitude of security operations associated with hosting two major summits back to back, which was unprecedented. I believe all of us can be proud of what we accomplished at the summits themselves.
A wide range of global challenges was addressed at the G-8 summit, including international peace and security, environmental sustainability and green recovery, as well as the global economic recovery. It also resulted in member nations agreeing to the Muskoka initiative, which will result in an increase in spending of $7.3 billion on maternal, newborn, and child health.
In Toronto, Canada hosted the first summit of the G-20 in its new capacity as the premier forum for international economic cooperation. Some of the many areas of advancement of this summit included taking steps to safeguard and strengthen the economic recovery; laying the foundation for strong, sustainable, and balanced growth globally; financial sector reform; as well as promoting trade and investment. This represents significant steps to support the implementation of a common vision at the international level through the alignment of economic actions and decisions by G-20 countries.
Member nations accomplished a great deal at both summits. I think it goes without saying that Canada can be proud of hosting such a massive undertaking when the eyes of the world were upon us.
In order for these summits to unfold in an orderly fashion, an enormous and complex logistic and security operation was required. While this cost was higher than any of us would have liked, it was necessary.
Leading the design and delivery of the security was the RCMP-led Integrated Security Unit. The security plan involved 10 federal government agencies and departments, including the RCMP, Public Safety Canada, the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces, Health Canada, Transport Canada, the Canada Border Services Agency, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, or CSIS, Industry Canada, as well as several provincial and municipal police forces.
In order to put the magnitude of the summits and the related security operation into perspective, I would like to share some numbers with the committee. An integrated security unit led by the RCMP was struck and established to coordinate the provision of security. Included in the ISU were representatives from the Ontario Provincial Police, the Toronto Police Service, Peel Regional Police, and the Department of National Defence. There were more than 20,000 police officers and military personnel deployed to the unified command centres as well as in and around the two summit sites to ensure security for the internationally protected persons and their delegations. It is important to note that there were more delegates at these summits than there were athletes at the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games in Vancouver.
Such a large security operation comes at a cost. Not only are large numbers of personnel required, but they must also have accommodations and the equipment necessary to perform their duties as well as manage logistics during the time of their deployment. This was confirmed by the Auditor General, who noted the following:
Obviously $1 billion is a lot of money, but I think we have to recognize that security is expensive. There are a lot of people involved over a long period of time. We may think that the meetings only last for a few days, but all the preparations involve extensive planning, extensive coordination for months before, and I think we have to be really, really careful.
Security is an expensive but non-negotiable endeavour. The responsibility for hosting these events includes the provision of the appropriate level of security. Not only does Canada have a moral obligation to protect the participants in these summits, but we also have an international obligation to do so under a United Nations convention adopted in 1973 to protect internationally protected persons. Further to this, the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act and the Criminal Code of Canada require that security be provided for internationally protected persons.
As a government, we also have a responsibility to be open and transparent about the cost, which is what we are doing. The government has been transparent about the total security budget from the onset. This observation has been confirmed by the Parliamentary Budget Officer in his assessment of the planned security costs for the G-8 and G-20 summits released in June. He indicated in his report that compared to other countries, Canada has been more transparent on the cost of security related to the summits. As you may be aware, the Auditor General is presently examining the security costs for the summits and is receiving full cooperation in the review. This, Mr. Chair, certainly has been my intent from the beginning. I've stated from the beginning that our books are open to the Auditor General for her review.
At this time, members of the Public Safety portfolio as well as security partners involved with the security for the summits are currently in the process of compiling and reconciling all security expenses incurred as a result of the summits. Due to the audit and financial control mechanisms and the security cost framework policy, the final security costs may not be known for a number of months. This is the case because the policy reimburses security partners for reasonable and justifiable incremental costs incurred. Once the security partners submit their final financial claims for reimbursement, an independent audit will be conducted to ensure that only eligible costs are reimbursed. All claims for reimbursement are to be submitted to Public Safety by December 1, 2010. Once these claims are received, the final audits will commence, with the intent to have the process completed by March 31 of next year.
Mr. Chair, I have committed to providing full disclosure of the G-8 and G-20 summits security costs in the past, and I am reaffirming this statement today. The government is accountable to the Canadian public and is committed to managing financial resources in a fiscally responsible manner. I can assure the committee that the government will respond to all questions posed on the security budget and costs, and it will deliver a full financial report on actual costs incurred once it is available.
Thank you. I would be happy to answer any questions you might have or else defer those questions to members of this panel who are more qualified to answer these specifics than I may be.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
