I’ve heard plenty of people complaining about the fact that this summit is going to cost $1.1B. I’ve also heard some other people say that it’ll pay for itself but without getting into specifics. I can understand that something like the Olympics can bring money into a city but how can a G8/G20 summit be a money maker? Why would any country want to host this thing? Status?
You host it so you can set the agenda. Well that and it rotates through everyone.
Biggest problem is that we’re transitioning from the G8 to the G20 and so the security and everything else just more than doubled.
You raise a very interesting point. There seems to be little benefit in hosting the G20. Anarchist kids smashing McDonald’s and Starbucks don’t exactly bring in beaucoup bucks like Olympic tourists. 990 million of that 1.1B you cited are being allocated for security alone. It’s become quite the hot button issue here in Canada.
Public Safety minister Vic Toews even questioned if the G20 was worth this exorbitant cost:
I for one don’t see why they can’t just have their meetings over the phone, but that’s just me…
17 days, international presence - Olympic security = approx 300 million $
3 days, international presence, G8/20 security = approx 930 million $
It’s absurd.
Apparently the main topic of conversation will be controlling government spending.
There will also be a session tabled to discuss the use of irony by the G20 xD.
I would think that there would be hundreds of places in Canada that would be more cost efficient places to hold these conferences than Toronto.
I don’t think the billion dollars is for hotel rooms.
True, but I bet it’s a lot cheaper to secure Tuktoyaktuk.
But the cost to fly in all of the hookers and blow would go through the roof!
I’m sure but I think that shutting down a good chunk of the downtown core of Toronto including the Rogers Centre, the CN Tower and whatever else would be a bit more expensive than, say, holding it on a military base.
You’ve forgotten that Huntsville was to be the G8 and G20 host city. As far as I remember dithering and ultimately determining that it wasn’t large enough to host the delegate effectively forced the meetings to the only place big enough and close enough to host the G20.
So instead of a single security/money spending umbrella we’ve got 2. Plus all the ancillary logistical costs.
I overheard a couple of old guys talking at the pool. They were saying it would be a good idea to have it on an aircraft-carrier. No shutting down a city, no protesters, easily secured.
Is that a good/bad idea? It sounded kind of good to me.
I can perfectly well understand the arguments for this … but it’s just a bit too close to what a military dictatorship would have to do.
pdts
They held the one in Genoa on a cruise ship, if memory serves. It didn’t work too well.
Hazel McCallion, mayor of Mississauga suggested using video-conferencing. I have to say it’s a pretty good idea.
It’s funny she’s over 80 and she came up with this 
That was my suggestion, too. The only counter-argument comes in the form of “If we don’t let our leaders meet wherever and whenever they want, the anarchists win.” Which, ok, nice moral victory for capitalism…not worth a billion dollars. I’m a brisk walk away from a bank that got firebombed, if you’re telling me a video conference would have prevented that, then yeah, go for it.
Can this even be remotely correct? Suppose you hired 10,000 extra security people (if you could find that many), and let them all conduct training drills and planning for 6 months in advance of the summit (which seems like enough manpower to make a place pretty damn secure), that works out to $99,000 each, for half-a-year’s work.
Seriously, what can they possibly be spending 990 million dollars on?
Maybe compensation to businesses for shutting streets down or something like that? I honestly don’t have a clue.
Neither does the rest of the country, and that’s why Sheila Fraser is looking into it.
I heard a lot of the cost is for installing UK-style video surveillance cameras and equipment on major street corners in Toronto. In other words, we strategically and quietly install security infrastructure for future potential crime investigations.
I’m not in any way against this.