Debates of June 1st, 2010

Opposition Motion—G8 and G20 Summits

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned a few examples, but let me give more examples of how this $1 billion could have been used.

It could have been used to increase the post-secondary student support program funding to provide every first nations student who wanted to go to school with the funds to do so. It could have provided a $1,000 grant to 250,000 students for each year of their undergraduate degree. We could have reduced the student loan interest rate down to the government cost of borrowing.

I mentioned some of the other ones. How about forgiving the total student debt for 56,000 Canadian students? There are a lot of things.

On the disability side, the government with much fanfare has put $45 million more into enabling accessibility. It is a program that has been politically butchered by the government. The $45 million over two years to enhance buildings to make them accessible could have been multiplied by 20, 22 or 23 times to make a huge difference in this country.

We have to look at how that money could have been better spent. I think our constituents are demanding that we do that. It is the right thing to do.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, does my colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour find it ironic that the Conservatives are hosting a conference whose main theme is fiscal restraint and they cannot even manage the budget for the conference?

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, that is almost as unbelievable as having a stimulus program and then spending $100 million to tell everybody that we are having a stimulus program. This is the kind of voodoo economics and backward style of accounting the government is becoming well known for.

This is unbelievable to Canadians. Here we are with the worst economy in the history of our country. It is the worst deficit after the Conservatives inherited the best surplus in the history of this country and now the Conservatives are saying there is no better way of spending $1 billion than to have summits in Muskoka and Toronto, both of which are great communities.

The Conservatives have to take responsibility. They changed the terms of these summits. They are the ones who have allowed the costs to escalate. They are the ones who have to take responsibility. They have to answer to the people of Canada for this billion dollar boondoggle. Canadians are throwing their hands up in the air and saying that it does not make any sense.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand and discuss the motion. It has been an interesting discussion thus far on the previous questions and debate here. I will read into the record part of the opposition day motion, which reads that Canadians:

...are outraged at the reckless partisan choices and financial mismanagement that have caused the security budget for the summits to skyrocket to over $1 billion which is more than six times the original budget and more than was spent on security for the 2010 Winter Olympics which lasted for 17 days and therefore the House calls on the government to provide a detailed breakdown to Canadians of how the money earmarked for security is being spent and an explanation of how the security budget was permitted to spiral out of control.

Some answers based on discussion here today and what we are seeing through the media are starting to come forward, but clearly this is a billion dollar boondoggle that lays right at the hands of the Prime Minister. I would think that the Prime Minister would have learned some lessons. He was the guy who talked about this country not going into deficit, took a surplus and drove the country into deficit and now we are even borrowing for tax breaks for corporations from our grandchildren. It then blows $1.1 billion on the security summits that were basically mismanaged from the start.

The then minister of health, now Minister of Industry, wanted this dropped into his riding, for whatever reason, and for a little while in that part of the country there was a sidewalk to nowhere. Eventually, however, the government learned that the location was not right for the G20 summit. That should have been recognized in the planning stages. The government's argument is that two summits back to back is the reason for the additional costs. With two summits, we should be able to gain efficiencies. They should be able to be done in the same facilities with the same training and security measures. It is the biggest three day expenditure in Canadian history.

I asked government members what it cost to build the Confederation Bridge between Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. It was an engineering feat to build that bridge and it cost $1.1 billion. The cost of that bridge, which took years to engineer and four years to build, is being spent in just three days by the government probably to mainly enhance the ego of the Prime Minister and give him good TV. It is absolutely sad.

[An hon. member]

You're being negative.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

The member opposite says that I am being negative. No such thing, I am being realistic in telling Canadians how the government continues to mismanage the funds that taxpayers pay from their hard work. Slightly more than a billion dollar boondoggle for three days, the biggest three day expenditure in Canadian history.

No one is questioning the need for security for summits, which is important, but compared to other summits there is no comparison with the cost of this one. When the Toronto location was selected, City of Toronto officials urged the federal government to reconsider its position due to major disruptions it would cause the downtown core. Mayor David Miller lashed out at the federal government spending on the G20 summit saying that the money could have been better used to modernize urban transit in the city for a generation--

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I would ask all members, if they are in the chamber, to ensure their cellular devices or mobile phones are turned off, including the member who is giving the speech. I will let him resume.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

My apology, Mr. Speaker. I thought it might be the Prime Minister calling to tell us the numbers had increased even further but it was not.

There is a whole other issue of security that we have been trying to deal with in my area of responsibility and that is with the Canadian Association of Agri-Retailers. It has been requesting $50 million from the Government of Canada for about two years to enhance its security around its 1,500 operations spread right across the country. Those are 1,500 businesses that sell fertilizer and chemicals and they are doing their best to secure those operations.

In the United States, which we have to compete against, the U.S. government is assisting its agriculture retailers, who sell fertilizer and chemicals, to put up security fences, security lights and secure those operations so that no one can break in, take materials and use them as explosives or for illegal or terrorist activities.

In Canada, however, where we have to compete with the United States, CAAR, which we met with at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, is asking and has been asking for a number of years for $50 million but both the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Minister of Public Safety have refused to deal with the issue. CAAR was outraged and sent a letter to the Minister of Public Safety about its outrage over this billion dollar boondoggle. It cannot even get a meeting or have a discussion on the fact that it would put us on a level playing field with the United States relative to the cost of securing fertilizer and chemicals in this country and would increase our public security as a nation in terms of those smaller operations and some quite large for that matter as well.

For those 1,500 CAAR operations scattered right across the country to find out that the government is blowing a billion dollars in terms of the summits when CAAR cannot even get a discussion on the matter, is absolutely insulting and it should not be.

The costs of the summits do not fit with the costs associated with other similar summits. The last one was held I believe in Great Britain. The one that was held in Japan cost somewhere over $300 million. The costs of the summits do not compare with what other nations have spent on these summits or even ourselves within our own country.

The summit that was held a number of years ago was put by the former Liberal government in a somewhat isolated location and could handle the number of people who would be there. It was much easier to secure. It was planned from the first instance in a better way to make better use of funding and provide better security and less disruption to the economy overall.

The bottom line is that Canadians have every right to be outraged at this billion dollar boondoggle on the part of the Conservative government which just adds further to the debt of this country. While it is doing that, it is even ignoring other areas where it should be enhancing security, as I mentioned a moment ago about the Canadian Association of Agri-Retailers which would protect ordinary Canadians in their homes and give them a sense of security that illegal acts would not be happening with fertilizer companies and the use of fertilizer and so on to cause damage to their economy and to their homes.

The bottom line is that the government must come forward with the details and explain how it has mismanaged this situation so badly as to get into this overexpenditure of dollars that looks to us as if it is just to enhance the ego of the Prime Minister.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the G20 summit is being held right in the middle of my riding of Trinity—Spadina. The merchants, the small businesses, the vendors and the residents are asking for help because if their windows are broken or their condominiums are damaged they will not get any compensation. At first I thought it was a miscommunication but it was clarified. The government said that if they were to suffer damage of this nature that their insurance would cover it. That is grossly unfair because the insurance companies said that they would not be able to do that.

With a budget of over $1 billion, how is it possible that the Conservative government would not compensate the small businesses, the vendors and the residents who will suffer because of this summit?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, businesses in the area, be it restaurants, retail businesses or whatever, have every right to be concerned. We have seen what has happened with what are supposed to be peaceful demonstrations to make a legitimate point at previous world summits where they do get out of hand, where there is always somebody who is trying to cause a little anarchy, which is certainly the reason for security.

However, it goes right to the point of poor planning in the beginning. To drop this summit into our biggest and most heavily populated city, just from a security point of view and an economic point of view, makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. For the government to take the position that it will not compensate businesses and families for any damage that may happen, goes to the attitude of the government that it just does not care. If it is not one of its own, it just does not seem to care.

It has been mentioned in this House where one of the ministers promotes businesses in his riding, regardless of all the others in the country he is supposed to be promoting. It is just that the Conservatives do not care.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Malpeque has raised the out of control Conservative spending that has led to a growth from $179 million for the security for the summit to now over $1 billion.

I would like him to speak to not just the out of control spenders but the out of touch Conservatives and to reflect on the fact that $1 billion could buy 500 MRI machines, 340,000 hip or knee surgeries or 17,000 public health nurses. I am hearing a lot from my constituents that they want better health care, shorter wait times and better services when they need it.

I would appreciate hearing from the hon. member what he is hearing from the good people of Prince Edward Island in terms of their priorities and for him to reflect on whether these types of priorities are the priorities we ought to be focusing on as legislators.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the numbers that my colleague outlined are in fact true. There is a need for more money in health care and in any number of other areas.

I will admit that when people in Prince Edward Island hear the $1 billion figure, they relate that to the Confederation Bridge. The $1.1 billion that bridge cost is exactly the same amount as what the current government is wasting, not necessarily totally wasting but in great part, for a three day extravaganza for the Prime Minister to try to show himself on the world stage and to assist with the Prime Minister's ego.

The people in Prince Edward Island wonder how a three day event by the current Prime Minister could cost--

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. Resuming debate. The hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

[Luc Desnoyers, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with my colleague from Sherbrooke.

It is my pleasure to speak to the Liberal motion about the mind-boggling costs associated with providing security for the G8 and G20 summits. I will read the motion:

That, in the opinion of the House, while Canadians are justifiably proud of Canada’s upcoming hosting of the G8 and G20 summits and determined to provide effective and efficient security for the visiting world leaders, they are outraged at the reckless partisan choices and financial mismanagement that have caused the security budget for the summits to skyrocket to over $1 billion which is more than six times the original budget and more than was spent on security for the 2010 Winter Olympics which lasted for 17 days and therefore the House calls on the government to provide a detailed breakdown to Canadians of how the money earmarked for security is being spent and an explanation of how the security budget was permitted to spiral out of control.

The obsequious wording of the motion belies the Liberals' perpetual fear of offending their voting base, which is melting away like snow in sunshine. The motion opens with a reminder that Canadians are justifiably proud of Canada's role as host. Come on. I have no doubt what Canadians would say if we were to ask them whether they would prefer to pay $1 billion for the G8 and the G20 or to set that money aside for something else and have the summits held elsewhere.

Of course the Bloc Québécois supports this motion and, to be clear, we support these events, but not at all cost. A thousand million dollars is crazy.

If we were to send all of the people planning to demonstrate to Varadero, Cuba, for seven days all-inclusive with no bulk discount, we could send a million demonstrators on vacation and still have $500 million left over for security.

The government is spending $1 billion, and not at some random moment in time. This money is being spent after the Vancouver Olympic Games, which cost the federal government $650 million.

This begs the question: was there not anything that was used for security at the Olympic Games—metal barriers, highly sophisticated metal detectors, surveillance cameras—that could have been loaned to the G8 and the G20?

Security is starting to become expensive in 2010.

Obviously, it is imperative to have a secure site to hold international events in Canada. We must not cut corners when it comes to ensuring the safety of the world's major leaders. However, of all the locations in Canada to host the G8 and the G20, they chose one that costs $1 billion.

The government's budgetary documents show that the security bill for both summits has gone from $179 million to $930 million and now more than $1 billion.

The budget has increased fivefold in a matter of months without any debate or justification. The only thing the Minister of Public Safety has said about the $933 million budgeted for security is, “This is what the experts tell us is required. I don't think people understand exactly how many people are at these summits”.

No, people do not understand why security for the G8 and the G20 costs $13 million an hour, nor do they understand why such an expensive location was chosen.

Security for the G20 in London cost $30 million and for the G20 in Pittsburgh, in 2009, $20 million. The costs can be higher, of course. The G8 summit in Gleneagles, Scotland, cost $110 million, the summit in Japan, in 2008, cost $381 million, the two-day G8 summit in Kananaskis, Alberta, cost $190 million. But there has never been a $1 billion price tag.

They are spending $1 billion for a G8 and yet the Prime Minister brags about his government's extraordinary management of the financial crisis. He cannot even manage a summit.

The truth is that when it comes to brute force, security and defence, the Conservatives happily sign the cheques, but when it comes to solidarity, fairness and compassion, they are nowhere to be found. Oops, all of a sudden, there is no more money.

This billion dollar government is opposing proactive legislation on pay equity. That is the billion dollar government for you. I just cannot get over it. It is the same government that refuses to give older workers an income support program that would cost just $55 million. What? That represents no more than four hours of the summit. With $1 billion, we could improve employment insurance, fund the Francofolies, the Festival International des Rythmes du Monde, the Fêtes de la Nouvelle-France for the next 200 years.

I was on Le Devoir's site reading the comments of an Internet surfer who, in light of the staggering amount spent on security for the G8 and the G20, suggested that they conduct the meeting by telephone conference in future to save a little bit.

Apart from the billion dollars, there is the question of ideology. These Conservatives have no problem spending money to increase the defence budget, or to put snipers on rooftops in Toronto, but they are indifferent to misery.

One of the subjects that the G8 will focus on is maternal health—a critical issue, if ever there was one. This is what it says on page 42 of the World Health Organization report titled Women and Health:

Unsafe abortion causes a significant proportion of maternal deaths. Nearly 70,000 women die each year due to the complications of unsafe abortion. The evidence shows that women who seek an abortion will do so regardless of legal restrictions. Abortions performed in an illegal context are likely to be unsafe and provided by unskilled persons in unhygienic conditions. Poor women and those affected by crises and conflicts are particularly at risk. Where there are few restrictions on the availability of safe abortion, deaths and illness are dramatically reduced.

The use of modern contraception has reduced the need for induced abortion, yet young women, especially when they are unmarried, often face difficulty in obtaining contraception and may resort to unsafe abortion. Globally, women of all ages have abortions but in sub-Saharan Africa, which has the highest burden of ill-health and death from unsafe abortion, one in four unsafe abortions is done on adolescents aged 15 to 19 years.

How much is the Conservative government, which determined that maternal health would be a priority at the next G8, willing to invest to help these women in developing countries who die as a result of an abortion? Not a cent.

This $13 million-an-hour government does not want to reopen the abortion debate, as if the other G8 countries would play along with the idea that this topic, which is inherent to women's health, should not be debated. Hillary Clinton was very clear about this.

And that is why we will be supporting the Liberal motion. We will continue to maintain and support Quebec's wishes. Here in the House, we will argue against poverty, and support health, education and women's groups, whose funding has been cut. We have a gun registry that costs $4 million a year. This $1 billion, or the $500 million left over for security, is significant. And we could list many more examples. That is why we will be supporting the Liberal Party motion.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his speech. I have a question for him. This $1.1 billion is a lot of money, and it is not the final total. We do not know the final total, and we perhaps never will. The member mentioned some countries and cities where the G8 and G20 have already been held. The cost for those was much lower than the cost in Canada.

I would like to ask the member whether he thinks the government perhaps spent much too much money in the riding of the Minister of Industry, using the pretext that it was for the G8 and G20. Did the government spend a bit too much money in that riding?

[Luc Desnoyers, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, the Conservative government made the worst choice. It is obvious that the $1 billion city was a partisan decision. The Conservative government could have chosen existing locations, like Kananaskis, where the costs would have been much lower, and which is accessible by only one road. We could have invited leaders to the G8 and G20 summits there, but instead the government chose the city with the $1 billion price tag.

In light of the current economic situation, I think that was a bad choice and was poorly planned. The government knows very well that this money could have been used to meet Quebec's health or education needs, or to combat poverty. It is quite clear right now how big the gap is between the rich and the poor. This money could have been used for other things.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, the narrative continues despite the facts.

We hear the same thing repeated once again, that the summit in Pittsburgh only cost $28 million. Those were municipal costs only. The members are comparing oranges with apples. It is most inappropriate and yet they keep repeating these statements.

I would like to point out some hypocrisy. This summit that is in the Minister of Industry's riding was not the Minister of Industry's riding when the area was selected. As a matter of fact, we heard the leader of the Liberals say, on September 17, 2008, to the people in Huntsville:

--when we are the government of Canada, the next G8 Summit will be held at Deerhurst Resort in Huntsville...You heard it from me: the G8 Summit will be in this community when we form the next government.

It was very convenient for the Liberal leader, in a pre-election tone, to posture that way, and now members of his party have changed their minds.

[Luc Desnoyers, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the member realizes that we are talking about $1 billion for security at the G8 and G20 summits in Toronto. The costs have soared to $13 million an hour. We all know that other summits have cost much less and that, in the current context, this money could be spent elsewhere, as I said earlier.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Chambly—Borduas has time for a very brief question.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles on his speech. I believe his comments were able to set the debate in context.

It would seem that this government is short on ideas of places to hold the G8 and G20. The most secure place in Canada right now is Parliament Hill, where we will not be sitting, which has media infrastructure, podiums and conference rooms. In addition, there are spots to house the delegates in Gatineau Park, which is not far. Would it not be a good idea to simply do it here?

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles has 10 or 15 seconds.

[Luc Desnoyers, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague. Instead of paying $1 billion for new infrastructure that we know exists elsewhere, we could have let them use this site, which is ideal, and they could have seen our Parliament.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when I heard the news, needless to say, I burst out laughing. I laughed quite hard, and as Nelligan wrote:

I am glad, so glad, as I laugh aloud,

Oh! so glad, that I am afraid I will burst into tears!

And that is just what I did after my initial burst of laughter.

I thought the media and reporters were mocking the government and the Prime Minister, pointing to the government's excesses, showing its extravagance and amateurism, in essence showing that it had been affected by summit fever. But that is precisely what is happening. There can be no other conclusion. But as parliamentarians, we have responsibilities to the public, which is watching the government spend $1 billion to meet with friends it has met with before. The summary the leaders are going to sign at the end of their meeting is probably already being negotiated.

First, the government is meeting with eight others to set the table, have an aperitif and enjoy appetizers and the main course. Then it is going to meet with the 12 or 20 other governments for a little dessert, with port and chocolates, and hand them the declaration summarizing all the negotiations that have been going on for a month or two or even longer.

The government is going overboard; it is a simple as that. I started crying when I realized that this was costing us not an arm and a leg, but both arms and both legs. Essentially, it is costing us the earth. At the same time, many people in our society do not have enough money to meet their needs and fulfill their aspirations. With $1 billion out of an annual budget of $225 billion, the Conservatives cannot hold too many parties every week or there will be no more money left for a lot of people, that is for sure.

My colleague mentioned some past summits. I would like to talk about one in particular. It was not the G8 or the G20, but the Summit of the Americas in Quebec City, which was still attended by 34 heads of state or their representatives. It is not very easy to provide security in Quebec City, either, what with everything that has to be put in place. Security cost $100 million. Moreover, we have among us today the person who was essentially responsible for security at the time. Obviously, $100 million for 34 heads of state works out to a good average compared to the figure we get for the G8 and G20 summits.

I was reading what Richard Cléroux wrote in the Montréal Express: “One billion dollars is enough to pave the Trans-Canada Highway between Montreal and Vancouver, there and back, twice over, with $10 bills.” The Conservatives might as well have done that. That would get people's attention and it would have been easier to ensure security in Toronto.

As for the equatorial conference, with our old $1 bills, we could have gone around the equator's circumference 40 times. With $5 bills, we could have gone around eight times and with $10 bills, four times. Using $20 bills, we could have gone around the equator's circumference twice.

We know how many hundreds of millions of people around the world earn $1 a day. Imagine how generous the federal government could have been. This could have meant 1 billion person-days to help people.

The costs associated with these summits are completely outrageous, especially if we look at them from various perspectives. My colleague from Chambly—Borduas has been fighting for an income support program for seniors for years now. That much money could have paid for such a program for tens, if not hundreds of years.

The population is aging and many people are being laid off. That money could have been used to cover such gaps.

A Liberal member, when asking the Prime Minister a question, said that the firearms registry, which the Conservatives want to eliminate, costs only $4 million a year, which translates into $2,260 for each life that is saved. We need to talk about how absurd this is. One has to wonder what the Prime Minister and the Conservative government could possibly have been thinking, when they agreed to spend so foolishly. I wonder how much the excessive costs can be blamed on the fact that the summits are being held in two different locations.

The government is going way too far, in terms of both foolish spending and foolish cuts. The latest Conservative budget is a perfect example of this. Their foolish cuts have caused nothing but grief for many people and many organizations.

We know that security is critical. We are hosting people from the G8 countries, which represent more than 60% of the world's wealth. These people obviously need a great deal of security. I know people in my region who are close to governments, who have a rather large personal fortune and who spend quite a bit of money on security. However, they foot the bill themselves and do not take the money directly out of taxpayers' pockets. We do not deprive people just to put on a show.

As my colleague was saying earlier, conference calls are very effective these days, but there also is a need to show off publicly. I wonder what type of show they will put on in Toronto and the other place whose name escapes me. It was not necessary to hold the summits in two different locations. It would have made things easier to hold them in one location.

It was completely irresponsible of the government to fail to shed light on this as soon as possible. That is why the Bloc Québécois is in favour of the motion moved by the official opposition party, the Liberal Party. We need to know how much of this is excessive spending and how much of this is incompetence and at what point extravagance took over. These are all extreme examples of excess, extravagance, amateurism and lack of professionalism. Unfortunately, this government is caught up in summit mania.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my Bloc colleague what he thinks of this idea. If the G8 and the G20 were held on a military base in any given province, they would cost much less than the $1.1 billion it will cost to hold them in the Minister of Industry's riding.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if the summits were held on a military base, they would not be as picturesque. The government wants to put on a show for the whole world. I imagine there will probably be some entertainment and fireworks.

It seems clear to me that the venue selection itself suggests a lack of planning. No doubt holding the summits in two different locations will double some of the costs.

The main purpose of the Liberal Party's motion is to find out whether the expenses are justified. My hope that the Prime Minister and the Conservative government will be able to justify these expenses may be in vain, but it is their responsibility to do so, and it is our responsibility as parliamentarians to ask for answers.

Surely you would like to know too, Mr. Speaker.