Evidence of meeting #45 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 summit.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Co-director of the G20 Research Group and Director of the G8 Research Group, University of Toronto
Sorry. Yes?
Liberal
Andrew Kania Liberal Brampton West, ON
She agreed with me that logistically the decision could have been made by the Conservative government to have both summits in one location, especially during recessionary times. That would have saved over $200 million in taxpayers dollars. So I'm sure you must agree with your colleague, and with logic, that you could have held both summits in one location and saved over $200 million.
Co-director of the G20 Research Group and Director of the G8 Research Group, University of Toronto
The great advantage of having more than one person is that we are professionally obliged not to agree for agreement's sake; I would need to know the already sunk costs in Muskoka. I must say that I am of the view that it would have been far more expensive and far more insecure to have hosted the G-20 in Muskoka, along with the G-8. That was the natural first instinct. I really do not think, even as a resident of downtown Toronto, that I would want to tell the people of Parry Sound, Muskoka, “Sorry, but everything has to be done in downtown Toronto to save on the expense”.
Liberal
Andrew Kania Liberal Brampton West, ON
Well, I don't think that's the issue. I think the issue is whether the taxpayers of Canada should have been on the hook for another $200 million because of splitting the summits between two locations, when your colleague and many others, including myself, have agreed that both could have been held in downtown Toronto with savings of $200 million during recessionary times.
You must agree that there is no need to split the summits along those lines, especially during recessionary times. You must agree with your colleague.
Co-director of the G20 Research Group and Director of the G8 Research Group, University of Toronto
I think the.... At university we seldom agree with our colleagues, I might say, but I think the key decision for the Canadian government is, do you want to host the G-20 summit, too, and accept that responsibility? Then, secondly, what is the most secure place to hold it in and is one that will reap some of the associated benefits?
I do think that the decision to host the G-20 in Toronto was the right one.
Liberal
Andrew Kania Liberal Brampton West, ON
Fine, but the G-8 could have also been held in Toronto at the same time for savings of over $200 million.
Co-director of the G20 Research Group and Director of the G8 Research Group, University of Toronto
By the time that decision was made, a considerable part of the expenditure for preparing the Muskoka site had been spent--
Co-director of the G20 Research Group and Director of the G8 Research Group, University of Toronto
--and could not have been recouped.
Co-director of the G20 Research Group and Director of the G8 Research Group, University of Toronto
I don't have an estimate.
Liberal
Andrew Kania Liberal Brampton West, ON
How do you know it's considerable if you don't know the number?
Co-director of the G20 Research Group and Director of the G8 Research Group, University of Toronto
Well, because I do know on the timing of it that the decision for Muskoka was publicly announced by the Prime Minister two years before it was held, and that is when expenses started to be incurred to prepare the site.
Co-director of the G20 Research Group and Director of the G8 Research Group, University of Toronto
Don't know.
Liberal
Andrew Kania Liberal Brampton West, ON
So how can you come to that conclusion and oppose your colleague when you don't know the numbers and you're speculating?
Co-director of the G20 Research Group and Director of the G8 Research Group, University of Toronto
I can make an estimate based on the normal cadence--
Co-director of the G20 Research Group and Director of the G8 Research Group, University of Toronto
--for spending money for preparing summits--
Co-director of the G20 Research Group and Director of the G8 Research Group, University of Toronto
--from the moment when the site is actually announced.
Co-director of the G20 Research Group and Director of the G8 Research Group, University of Toronto
If we...I think I'll need to get back to you on that.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
All right. That's fair.
That brings up another point. On any of these questions, if any of our guests would like to get back to us.... Certainly we don't expect you to have some of those figures right off the top of your head, but if you wouldn't mind getting back on some of those, we would appreciate it.
We'll now go to Mr. Norlock, please, for five minutes.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses for attending today.
My first question is for Mr. Kirton. On May 30, reporter Daniel Lessard of Radio-Canada interviewed former Prime Minister Paul Martin with regard to the G-8. It flowed, I suspect, into the G-20.
The response to his questions concerning the G-8 and G-20 was as follows, and I quote: “Well listen, it's part of our responsibilities. We're members of the G-8. Now it's turned into the G-20. We cannot refuse. It's part of our responsibilities. We have obligations as a country. We have obligations to fulfill them. Obviously this money is flowing into our economy and this will increase Canada's prestige.”
Number one, would you agree with that statement of former Prime Minister Martin? Would you say it's accurate to say that it's part of our responsibility in those organizations? Number two, would you agree that when Mr. Martin referred to “prestige”, this goes along not only with your obligation, but with showcasing your country—I think that's the common expression--as a mature economy, as a responsible economy, and as part of an international decision-making process within those organizations?
Number three, from an economic point of view, would you also comment that the money spent there, when it's spent in the country, stays within the country and eventually governments do what governments do and they tax it back? For instance, when you're dealing with security, since we didn't use the Canadian armed forces and chose to use the civil authority, the police, many of those police organizations were paying their members overtime, and when people work overtime, the government tends to tax that revenue at a higher rate in that case?
Would you comment on those statements and on the statement of the former prime minister?