G20 Costs VII

Somewhere at the bottom of an article on the Auditor General's report on the G20 summit...

In a separate report, the Auditor-General looked at the overall financial management of the G8 and G20 summits, stating Parliament was ill-informed as it approved $1.1-billion in funding. The Auditor-General said that final expenses came in at nearly half of the amount, or $664-million.

"Ill-informed" is a terrible wording to use. Maybe "unprepared" or "MPs did not sufficiently review" are better ways to describe it.

“Because of the short time frame to prepare for the summits, departments had to prepare budgets quickly, often with limited information,” Mr. Wiersema said. “As a result, the funding requests significantly overestimated the amounts needed.”(link)

Now I've been pretty critical of the Tories on this issue. I don't believe there was enough review of the budget estimates by civil servants, the Tories, or the regular MPs who voted on it.

But you would think costs coming it at 1/2 estimate would be a good thing.

Quite frankly it was a foregone conclusion. What's baffled me is that I could do some simple google searches to verify that their estimate was pretty off. It baffles me that not a single MP, Tory, or civil servant did the same.

The fact that costs came in so low proves it. But really, the costs at $664 million are still a multiplier off from the costs of previous summits.

I'm not a parliamentary procedure or budgeting expert. I'm sure there are plenty of details about this situation I don't understand. But I don't like my tax dollars being wasted. And I think it's fairly obvious that a lot of money went down the drain when it didn't need to.

Bad decisions were galore over this file. I don't believe that figures like Tony Clement or John Baird will go without learning lessons. I hope one of those lessons is to have more independent review and confirmations of spending estimates.

I hope another, is that rushing billions of dollars of spending estimates through any organization (especially parliament and the civil service) is a recipe for mistakes to be made - and big ones at that.

G20 Costs VI
G20 Costs V
G20 Costs IV
G20 Costs III
G20 Costs II
G20 Costs I

G20 Costs VI

I honestly didn't think I would ever write another G20 post. Little did I know, Sheila Fraser had other plans.

However, it should be said that this couldn't have been that surprising to anyone. When a summit costs upwards of 150 times the value of similar summits held recently something was misspent.

The interesting part of this whole affair is that the report was leaked now. I find it hard to understand how this would inflict maximum damage. If I really wanted to hammer the Tories over this I would wait until the day of the debates, thereby ensuring that the Tories are caught off guard.

Yet at the same time, I don't think the opposition will get much play over this issue. The G20 summit happened a long time ago now. The public has well over forgotten.

Moreover, financial scandals have hard time sticking to governments. Just ask Jean Chretien. It has to get really really REALLY bad for people to take notice. One billion dollar boondoggle alone is not enough.

To make matters worse for the opposition, they are unlikely to convince many that they would do a better job. Fiscal responsibility is just not a core winnable issue for the left in general. It would be the equivalent of the Tories criticizing Liberal policy on healthcare. Would Canadians really believe the Tories are the defenders of public healthcare? Regardless if it's true or not - the prevailing bias is what it is.

I believe that the Tories will most likely emerge from this and survive. And (I hope) learning some hard lessons.

G20 Costs V
G20 Costs IV
G20 Costs III
G20 Costs II
G20 Costs I

G20 Costs V

Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse:

Sources tell me [the] security cost of the disastrous G-20 summit will reach at least $2-billion. (link)

That puts the final cost of the G20 summit at about 150 times the cost of the two other summits last year in the US and the UK.

For the same price of one summit in Toronto, the UK could have had 150 summits.

At what point does something become a debacle?

G20 Costs IV
G20 Costs III
G20 Costs II
G20 Costs I

No One's Buying It

Ridiculous is the only word to describe this:

“There was an honest misinterpretation by people who were dealing with these matters in the midst of the heat of the moment,” Mr. Mukherjee said.

“It was the government, the minister of community safety, that realized that there was a misinterpretation. And they drew it to the attention of the staff and they then advised the chief right away. … There was no willful misinterpretation. There was no intent to mislead anybody.

“And as far as the police officers were concerned, they were advised right away, as soon as the mistake was detected.”(link)

Do they honestly expect anyone to believe this claptrap merely a day after the police chief admitted to the ruse?

Asked Tuesday if there actually was a five-metre rule given the ministry’s clarification, Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair smiled and said, “No, but I was trying to keep the criminals out.”(link)

If this were a business, and I were running it, the police chief and half these knuckleheads would be out the door faster than you can say "five-metre rule."

If I were a police officer I would be ashamed right now.

The G20 Idiots

I've sat back and watched the coverage. Police cars burning. Police harassing seemingly innocent protesters.

Those same protesters destroying public property.

Then I watched videos of real wanna-be "hero's" confront police officers to prove some sort of point. Who knows exactly what they were trying to prove. Then I watched police officers, believe it or not, professionally handle these situations.

Then to make matters worse, I just watched a police chief admit he lied to the public.

There was no 5 metre rule. It was just a tactic used to intimate individuals into complying with searches.

The end result? There were idiots all over downtown Toronto this past weekend - Both Police and Protester.

In my opinion everyone should be ashamed at their behavior. Police should be ashamed at the abuses of power that their police chief apparently sees no issue with. Protesters should be lamenting the horrible damage those that destroyed property did to their cause.

In the middle of this stupidity their were no doubt true innocents not reported by the media who have experienced financial loss or a violation of charter rights.

This past weekend was not a good weekend for Toronto or Canada.

G20 Costs IV

I was just forwarded this email exchange from a fellow Tory. Relevant names and email addresses have been deleted.

----From: Donations
Subject: FW: Help us end the long-gun registry...
To: [DELETED]
Date: Thursday, 24 June, 2010, 12:34

Thank you for taking the time to contact the Conservative Party of Canada and for sharing your thoughts with us regarding the G8/G20 security costs. Please be assured that your comments and suggestions have been carefully reviewed.

Since the tragic events of 9/11, increased security has, unfortunately, become a fact of life. Security is costly, but it is imperative to the safety and well-being of the G8/G20 participants and all Canadians, that we spend this money. Some 30 world leaders will be in attendance, along with thousands of delegates and media. All of these people need to be housed, fed, transported, and protected. These individuals will face the entire range of security threats that accompany such meetings, which is why we need to go to such lengths to ensure their safety.

The infrastructure that will be put in place will remain long after the G8/G20 has finished, benefitting residents of Toronto and Muskoka. The new infrastructure ranges from new equipment and road improvements, to buildings and improved communications networks. Please rest assured that our Conservative Government has planned accordingly for all costs and are on target and within budget.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to write.

Yours truly,


[DELETED]
Fundraising & Membership Services Department
Section des Activités de financement et des Services aux membres
Conservative Party of Canada
Parti conservateur du Canada
Tel./Tél. 1-866-808-8407 Fax/Télec. 613-755-2001



----From: [DELETED]
Date: June 16, 2010 8:07:10 PM PDT
To: "Irving R. Gerstein"
Subject: Re: Help us end the long-gun registry...

Put some money towards a tax cut for me, instead of this silly G8/G20 summit combo, and you'll get my attention!

--- On Wed, 16/6/10, Irving R. Gerstein, Chair, Conservative Fund Canada wrote:

From: Irving R. Gerstein, Chair, Conservative Fund Canada
Subject: Help us end the long-gun registry...
To: [DELETED]
Date: Wednesday, 16 June, 2010, 22:09

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

Dear Mr. [DELETED],

Last week, I sent you an email asking you for your opinion on how we should handle the upcoming battle to scrap the expensive and ineffective long-gun registry.

Right now, the final vote on the bill to scrap the registry hangs in the balance: the difference between success and failure being decided by 12 NDP and 8 Liberal MPs who have previously voted in support of the bill but whose commitment may be flagging.

This is your chance to tip the balance.
(...)

I get that the responder is merely a peon carrying out orders. But I gotta ask: does anyone up at the PMO know what they're talking about?

Using 9/11 as a reason for escalating costs would be reasonable in a world where G20 summits have only happened prior to 9/11. In the "real" world, the Toronto summit is one of four since 9/11.

Two of the four happened in major urban centers and two cost between 12 to 28 million. Gordon Brown, the British Prime Minister, was roundly criticized for the 28mill price tag of his summit just last year. Our summit is nearing $1billion.

Britain surely had to deal with the increased security costs of 9/11 - they somehow seemed to spend 35 times less for the same service.

Let's put this into perspective here. For the same cost of our G20 summit Britain could have held the following summits:

1) The London G20 Maternal Health Summit
2) The London G20 Holy Moly The Economy is bad Summit
3) The London G20 "Cause We Can" Summit
4) The London G20 Climate Change Summit
5) The London G20 Bank Tax Summit
6) The London G20 Irish Drunkards Summit
7) The London G20 Drug Dealers Summit
8) The London G20 Mafia Summit
9) The London G20 Horror Film Summit
10) The London G20 Soccer Summit
11) The London G20 Bollywood Summit
12) The London G20 Stars on Ice Summit
13) The London G20 Washed-Out Actors Summit
14) The London G20 Nuclear Summit
15) The London G20 End of World Summit
16) The London G20 Mama's Boy Summit
17) The London G20 Meddlers Summit
18) The London G20 Old Aging Hippies Summit
19) The London G20 Old Aging Hairy Arm-pitted Hippies Summit
20) The London G20 New Age Summit
21) The London G20 No Name Summit
22) The London G20 Britain's Got Talent Summit
23) The London G20 Austin Powers Summit
24) The London G20 Pad Thai Summit
25) The London G20 It's Called Football Stupid Summit
26) The London G20 We Are Not Alone Summit
27) The London G20 Star Trek Summit
28) The London G20 Haggus Summit
29) The London G20 Braveheart Summit
30) The London G20 Teabag Summit
31) The London G20 Europhile Summit
32) The London G20 Euroskeptic Summit
33) The London G20 Riot This! Summit
34) The London G20 Chinese Buffet Summit
35) The London G20 Summit to End all Summits

For the same summit that Canada has done once, Britain could hold one summit every year for next 35 years!

Now that's a cost overun!

G20 Costs III
G20 Costs II
G20 Costs I

G20 Costs III

An apparent blunder by Sarkozy? I don't think so:

He then went on to make a bold declaration that could come back to haunt him in 2011.
(...)
“...As for the French G8/G20, even though I can’t confirm the Canadian numbers, they will be ten times less. Exactly.”(link)

Except that previous summits held in the past had a price tag closer to 1/63 of the cost of this summit. 1/10th, it could be argued, is actually a pretty extravagant target.

Sarkozy's rush to name a number (in my opinion) is a smack against Harper. Sarkozy could have easily said nothing. Instead he chose controversy.

Something tells me some background politicking may be in play.

G20 Costs II
G20 Costs I

G20 Costs II

“So that is exactly why we need these type of summits, that is exactly why leaders sitting around the table face-to-face—and not through Twitter, Skype or video-conferencing—will eventually produce more results.”

Soudas also suggested that once leaders get down to business, any questions about Harper’s credibility as a result of the $1.2 billion cost of the meetings and the controversy over the “fake lake” at the media centre will be left far behind.(link)

The problem is that's a really bad reason for costs to be 63 to 3 times the cost of similar summits held in other countries. The issue isn't that the costs are unnecessary, but it's that they are extravagant and ultimately unreasonable.

It's the equivalent of the government buying a car for $1.2 million, yet similar cars go for $20,000 in the market. If you ever saw that type of expense you couldn't tell me you would buy the car.

This is a big whopping mistake. No business would accept cost overruns like these. I just can't figure out what the Tories in Ottawa were thinking.

G20 Costs I

G20 Costs

2008 Washington Summit: $??
2009 London Summit: $19 mill UK ($28 mill CDN)
2009 Pittspburgh Summit: $12.2 mill USD ($12 mill CDN)

2010 Toronto Summit: $1 Billion CDN


That's a pretty big difference.