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.
Conservative
Phil McColeman Conservative Brant, ON
Fantastic.
I'll go to Ms. Prokop.
Frankly, I might just observe how inspiring it is to hear today that we have such a group, which is actually the inaugural group of these young entrepreneurs, because we're talking now about the future of our country, the economy of our country. Can you just tell me briefly--
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Unfortunately, she can't, Mr. McColeman, in 20 seconds. Unless you want to work it into another comment later, thank you very much.
Now we'll move back to Mr. Holland, please.
Liberal
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
It's rare these days that Mr. McColeman speaks and doesn't reference me, so I'm glad that he's thinking of me.
First of all, I just have a comment. One of the things that is left out of the quote of Mr. Ignatieff is the fact that there had already been a decision to put the summit in Muskoka and that he was saying he wouldn't reverse the decision, and secondly, that the G-20 had not yet been added. At the time, Mr. Clement was bragging about how much money would be saved by having it all in Muskoka. So the government had told us it all could be held in Muskoka and we would realize incredible savings as a result of that. Of course, that's all left out of it.
Mr. Kirton, in talking about how this reflected internationally, you stated it was really an unequivocal success. I'm paraphrasing, but that's essentially how you put it. I'm going to read you some headlines:
In Le Point, an article entitled, "Toronto Summit: A G20 for (nearly) nothing".
“A Missed Opportunity” is from the Times of India.
"G20: Leaders find no common path," is another headline, which appeared in Le Monde, in France.
“G-20 deficit cuts 'a fantasy'” is from ABC News.
“The Summit of Disappointment” is from FOCUS Online, Germany.
“After the G-20 Summit in Toronto: Gabriel: The Markets Remain Unregulated, Nothing Happens” is from a German paper.
It goes on.
“The Summit that could not have been” is from Gazeta Prawna in Poland.
“The G-20 accord: you go your way, I'll go mine” is from The Guardian, the United Kingdom.
I didn't hear in any of your comments--aside from glancing acknowledgement of some of what I thought were very disturbing things that we heard from some of the witnesses today--any criticisms. So I would afford you the opportunity, looking at it objectively, to say, “Where did it go wrong?” Or in your opinion, did it not go wrong at all in any place?
Co-director of the G20 Research Group and Director of the G8 Research Group, University of Toronto
The first Toronto summit in 1988 received far more favourable publicity around the world than the more recent Toronto summit did. The point I made was that the Canadian coverage of the Toronto summit was more negative than the international coverage.
If we compare global media coverage of G-20 summits, the only one that received substantially positive treatment was the second summit in London. As we move forward in the coverage to the Seoul summit and the previous one in Toronto, there were very few references to the violence in Toronto. So part of the negative image had come off.
As for improvements that could be made—and I applaud your constructive instincts—I've come to the conclusion that, given the global challenges G-20 summits face, they are just too short. A good portion of the short time they have is taken up with the leaders sleeping. This lack of time has a number of negative impacts. It prevents this group of disparate leaders from coming together and bonding as individuals to face a common cause. I think we saw that in Seoul.
There were a number of issues that we had hoped Toronto would address: IMF reform, Basel free banking resolutions.... These were largely deferred to Seoul because there just wasn't enough time once the big job of containing the euro crisis through the macroeconomic message was achieved.
I deeply regret that the peaceful protest held a few days before the summit by my friends in the environmental community was not publicized. It didn't catch the attention of the country, and it didn't move G-20 governors to build on an option advanced at the previous summit at Pittsburgh—the fossil fuel subsidies phase-out. If we could just do that on time, we would help to meet our climate change control challenges, further the cause of human health, and, according to the OECD, save the hard-pressed taxpayers of the world over half a trillion dollars in subsidies. This would be a win for fiscal consolidation, for the environment, and for health. That's the kind of thing we want our summits to do.
Liberal
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
Mr. Chavarie, you said there was a need for a full judicial inquiry, with the ability to ask questions. Surely it would also be more than that. You spoke of losing confidence in the Canadian system's tolerance for peaceful protest. What would you want to see beyond that?
External Coordinator, Student Union of the University of British Columbia Okanagan
Accountability.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you, Mr. Chavarie.
We'll now move to Madame Mourani.
I should also mention that all parties have decided not to proceed to committee business. I want to thank Madame Mourani for waiving her right on her motion so that we could have this other round.
Go ahead, Madame.
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'd like to inform those here present, particularly those who were arrested, that the Bloc Québécois has been calling for a public inquiry since last July, when our committee held its first meeting on the G8 and G20 summits. I'm pleased that my NDP colleague adopted that position in November. That's also been recently the case.
However, the Liberal Party still has not called for a public inquiry. The Conservative government, for its part, still refuses to meet that request. What do you think about that? Should there be a public inquiry? Do you think the Liberals' position should change?
External Coordinator, Student Union of the University of British Columbia Okanagan
I feel that this is something we want to look forward to seeing. From a lot of the questions that are going around today, I think a public inquiry, and eventually a judicial inquiry, will pave a way to those answers and provide accountability for what happened during the G-20.
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
What do you think, Mr. Stayshyn? Do you believe we should conduct a public inquiry into everything that happened in Toronto during the G20 and that we should address the issue of human rights, not just finances?
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
Very well. Thank you.
Mr. Paikin, I know you're not engaged in politics, but I would at least like to ask you whether you think a public inquiry should be held.
Anchor and Senior Editor, TVO
You're right, madam: I'm not a politician. That's a political question. So that's your responsibility.
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
Oh, all right. That's a good answer.
Now I'm going to speak to Mr. Kirton, who I'm very much interested in.
Mr. Kirton, we're talking about costs of approximately $1 billion, but we aren't that sure, because not all the accounts have yet been put on the table. This isn't bingo money here, but rather that of ordinary citizens.
We're talking about an artificial lake that cost $1.9 million. I'd like to know what security purpose that serves. We're talking about $123 million for foreign affairs. There was $4,600 for dinners. That's what's called serious eating. For 24 table settings, the figure given was $11,000. But there weren't 200 people, but rather 24. We also see the sum of $2,000 for pins and $3,000 for woolen shawls.
Mr. Kirton, the construction of washrooms and a look-out some 20 kilometers away from the summit cost $300,000. We're talking about upgrading an old steam boat at a cost of $400,000. However, the boat was not even ready for the G8 and G20 summits. Don't you think all that's a bit excessive?
If I add up all these minor items, that comes to a total of $1 million. You know what can be done with $1 million in a society? You can help people eat and sleep in decent housing. You can contribute to the Guaranteed Income Supplement for seniors. Do you know how much money we need? And you're telling me that's acceptable?
Conservative
Co-director of the G20 Research Group and Director of the G8 Research Group, University of Toronto
It's a long list of expenses. You'll forgive me if I just comment on the ones I feel most passionately about.
The first is that I think the Canadian foreign service is one of our greatest national assets and is critical to our global success. So all of the money spent in producing both of our summits, and certainly for going around the world through a very extensive program of outreach to hear the views of the poorer countries that in the main didn't have a seat at the table, I think is money very well spent.
Some of the programs--
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
Pardon me, but this is illogical.
We invest millions of dollars in Canada's image, whereas we're dealing with social problems, in a world that's starving to death. Do you think that's logical? How does investing $3,000 in shawls contribute to Canada's image? Can you tell me what that does, when children are dying of hunger in Africa, in particular, and can't obtain vaccines? There's also AIDS and a whole host of other problems.
You really think that the $3,000 used to buy shawls, the $2,000 for pins and the $300,000 for the damned toilets that served no purpose will help the little children in Africa or elsewhere in the world who can't get be vaccinated and are dying of hunger or AIDS? Don't you think that's shameful, Mr. Kirton?
I'm ashamed.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you, Madame Mourani.
Mr. Kirton, unfortunately, we have a time limit.
That is another example of one of those questions. If you would like to submit a written response to each one of our committee members and send it to the clerk, we'd appreciate it.
I'll go to Mr. Davies.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Paikin, to go back to the tweets you wrote live, which I think have a certain power and immediacy because you were reporting as events unfolded, again, you said:
I saw police brutality tonight. It was unnecessary. They asked me to leave the site or they would arrest me. I told them I was doing my job.
They repeated they would arrest me if i didn't leave. As Iwas escorted away from the demonstration....
I take it “they” were the police.
Have you ever, sir, in the conduct of your duties as a journalist in Canada, been threatened by the police with arrest if you didn't leave the scene in a public place while doing your job of reporting?
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Was there anything about what you were doing at that moment? Were you in a sensitive place or were you engaged in a dangerous operation or were you interfering with the police in any way?
Anchor and Senior Editor, TVO
The demonstrators were in the middle of the street, on the esplanade, and I was off on the sidewalk, observing. I made it quite plain to the officer involved that I didn't think that tweeting on a BlackBerry represented any kind of danger or difficulty for the officers in doing their job. He wasn't nasty about it, I have to clarify. He wasn't angry at me. He wasn't menacing or anything, but he did say, “I'm under orders to clear this place, and that means you too.” So--
NDP