Evidence of meeting #44 for Public Safety and National Security in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was summits.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Director of Research, G-8 and G-20 Groups, University of Toronto, Munk School of Global Affairs
It was the most expensive. It cost about $750 million just for the G-8 summit in 2000.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
That was for the G-8, and it was not significantly less in the big picture than our numbers currently in Canada for two summits.
Director of Research, G-8 and G-20 Groups, University of Toronto, Munk School of Global Affairs
Yes, but for the Japanese summit, more of the money was spent on infrastructure than on security. In the 2000 summit, less money was spent on security than in the Canadian summit. The overall figure, however, was higher because of the infrastructure that was put in that area.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
Is it fair to say that it's very difficult to compare apples to oranges in these summits, because different countries have different situations?
Director of Research, G-8 and G-20 Groups, University of Toronto, Munk School of Global Affairs
Yes, it is an extremely excruciating exercise. At the end of the day I would say that the figures we come out with offer a snippet, in trying to compare them, but they're never going to be exact.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
Sure. I think everybody has to realize that the situations are not the same in every country we go to. Is that fair?
Director of Research, G-8 and G-20 Groups, University of Toronto, Munk School of Global Affairs
I would say that's fair.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
I want to mention to Mr. Leitold that I think he gave us credit for being in power in 2001, but it wasn't the Harper Conservatives.
Member, Movement Defence Committee of the Law Union of Ontario
I didn't say that.
Liberal
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Guebert, this meeting was supposed to be about austerity and attacking international debt. If the government had put its austerity hat on and its priority was reducing costs, looking at other experiences with other jurisdictions and the possibility of hosting both summits in one location instead of spreading it to two, in your opinion would it have been possible to do this for a lot less money?
Director of Research, G-8 and G-20 Groups, University of Toronto, Munk School of Global Affairs
I think there are ways that less money could have been spent. Hosting the summit in one location would have been one way to do that. Costs could have been cut at the summit in a variety of other ways.
Liberal
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
I notice that Mr. MacKenzie didn't mention as an example the security benefits of $85,000 in snacks at one hotel, or the security benefits of fake lakes and other such expenses.
Mr. Leitold, you called for a federal inquiry. We know that the Toronto Police Board has said that there is a need to look at this from a federal perspective. In your opinion, what would the context of that be? What would be the scope of it?
Secondly, we don't have a lot of time, but I'm wondering if you could give an example of a group that has been highly critical of the government that faced the type of treatment you referred to.
December 1st, 2010 / 5:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you, Mr. Holland.
The bells are now ringing and the lights are flashing. We want to thank you for attending. That brings the meeting to an end.
Thank you for your testimony. Thank you for your input on the study that this committee is conducting. If you would like to submit more information to our committee, we would appreciate it.
We are adjourned.