G20 security tab: What else could $1B buy?
Canada could buy a lot of aid for price of summit security, critics say
Susan Delacourt
Ottawa Bureau
Toronto Star
OTTAWA – Three years’ worth of vastly improved health facilities for women and children in developing countries; $1,000 tuition cuts for every student in Canada; 11,000 new construction jobs.
These are among the suggestions being offered to Prime Minister Stephen Harper on better ways to spend the nearly $1 billion earmarked for security for the G8 and G20 summits next month.
That $1-billion figure, in fact, is quickly emerging as an important benchmark, with Harper under increasing pressure to emerge from those summits with spending commitments over and above his security costs – dollars directed toward the less fortunate abroad, for instance.
But that would be a massive increase – a doubling, in fact, of the $500-million budget that International Co-operation Minister Bev Oda was boasting this week as the highest-ever aid commitment in Canada’s history. Now, however, next to the security price tag for the summits, it is looking like a drop in the bucket.
“We could make a really landmark Canadian investment in maternal and child health around the world, that would do more than any single thing to meet those millennium development goals,” says Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff. “We could simply lead the world.”
The New Democrats, seeing what the Conservatives are willing to fork over for security, are calling on Canada to put $1.4 billion over five years into foreign aid directed at maternal health, as requested by the international Partnership for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health.
That breaks down into roughly $300 million a year – so it would take three years to spend what Harper’s government has committed to security costs for three days of meetings in Huntsville and Toronto at the end of June.
“When you can spend a billion dollars to send out sound cannons on protesters in Toronto, the least you can do is provide $1.4 billion over a couple of years to provide front-line health services to women in the Congo. It’s a no-brainer,” says NDP foreign-affairs critic Paul Dewar.
Dewar said that with $1.4 billion extra from Canada over the next five years, women and children in poor countries such as the Congo could mean more medical clinics closer to the people who need them, better transport to health facilities and a boost in “front-line” services, getting clean water and food to children, for example, who need those basics in the first years of their lives.
Oda, however, told the Commons committee on the status of women this week that Canada would be paying for its summit commitments out of the existing international-aid budget.
“Our government has been increasing its international aid by 8 per cent every year. That 8 per cent remains in the base of CIDA, in our international assistance, and then we build 8 per cent on top of that. That brings us to $500 million for international assistance, the largest amount ever in the history of Canada,” she said.
Ignatieff was in his Toronto riding having lunch on Friday and found that the $1-billion number has touched a nerve with the public.
“People came up right out of the queue and said ‘what is going on?’” Ignatieff told the Star. “The public really doesn’t like this.” In addition to boosts in the aid budget, Ignatieff said he’d much rather see the money being spent on reducing students’ tuition, creating jobs for the unemployed or even improving broadband access for rural Canadians.
In the House of Commons this week, as well, NDP MP Olivia Chow cited a number of ways to spend $1 billion.
“Three percent of that $1 billion would provide all Canadian children a nutritious and healthy breakfast or snacks every day. We can lift all seniors out of poverty by increasing the guaranteed income supplement,” Chow said.
“Canada could pay one-third of the costs of the millennium development goal and save the lives of over 10 million women and children by 2015.”
Ignatieff says that his party is going to be demanding an official accounting for security costs that he describes as “off the charts.”
“It’s simply impossible to understand,” he said.
Irene Mathyssen, the NDP’s status-of-women critic, said she is troubled by the prospect of how this $1 billion is going to be spent – silencing protest and keeping world leaders safe, when those dollars could be stretched much farther if devoted to making lives safer abroad.
“A billion dollars for security alone. What about all the other extraneous expenses?” Mathyssen said. “I think we should be investing that in human beings.”
May 30, 2010 at 10:28 AM
$1 billion. That's a lot of iPods. I agree with many members of the opposition party, in that $1B is too much for security. Instead, that money could be used to help out humans in less fortunate countries or even Canadians. We're all slowly coming out of a rough period and we still have a lot more work to do. That money could help Canadians by creating more jobs, providing aid to students etc. Also, that money can help people in third-world countries by improving health care and maternal health care. I agree with Mr.Ignatieff and I think the opposition party should demand an audit, which I think they have already done, so that unnecessary expenses aren't added onto the security bill, to avoid bad publicity. With all the drama on the Hill regarding finances, I wouldn't be surprised if another story arises from this bill. I also thought about how we can reduce the security bill and I can think of two possible solutions. My first idea was that the leaders of different countries should bring their own security. Who knows the leaders better than their own security guards? With their own protecting them, the leaders will feel at ease, protected and trust their security. Also, their security knows how the leader will react when in attack and can act accordingly to that. Also, it would save some money, which we can all afford to do. My second idea was that all countries pitch in money for security. When a lot of people put in money, the desired amount can be reached. Also, the host country won't feel as overwhelmed with the bill. It only makes sense. Think of it as a store. If you want to be safe, buy the product and pay up. Like I always say, they're just ideas... so don't hate :) Money is very valuable. Almost as valuable as oil, if not. It should be used wisely, not spent extravaganytly.
I chose this article because it uses examples that will make Canadians realize how much $1 billion really is. It shows them that the government is spending money unnecessarily and makes them realize all the other times they saw big numbers like that on the newspaper, tv or internet. It makes them think of alternate ways to save, like I just did, which is always a good skill to posess. Especially in times like this.
June 6, 2010 at 4:54 PM
I completely agree with you Kitty! Although it is understandable that the G20 is an important event and it is that much more significant now that it is occurring in our own city, Toronto, it is ridiculous that the government would spend so much money for its security. After all, what could not be done with that billion dollar? Well, firstly, our government needs to understand that while we are throwing money like this in the air, there are people living across the globe that are dying, this very minute from lack of food and money. This money could have gone towards foreign aid and may be even for abortion funding in other countries. When the G8 brought this issue up to the government, our Prime Minister, oh-so-surely and assertively mentioned that above all, discussion about the economy would be at the top of the agenda. Ironically enough, now in just a matter of few months, the government of Canada suddenly seems to have not just a few thousand, or even million but A BILLION DOLLARS to spend just on security!
Here’s the other thing. Other then providing foreign aid for developing countries, this money could have been used for climate change issues! Global warming is occurring in our planet right now and Canada has failed to reach its goal of the Kyoto Protocol, shamefully! Instead of decreasing the carbon dioxide emissions by 6%, we have increased it by 25%. Is this not a big enough wake up call for our government? Could the billion dollars not be used towards better technology to improve our climate, environment and work towards building a better, safer and healthier atmosphere for our future?
This article also raises many questions in my mind. Since our government has already spent a billion dollars on this event, there is no point in complaining about it now. What I want to know is that is this event really worth the money? What will we be the consequences of G20 and how effective will this really be? For example, the government spent numerous amounts of money on the Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympics and in return, business in Vancouver increased greatly. Hotels were booked and reserved, restaurants and bars were packed, TV channels received sponsors who paid great amounts of money and Canada welcomed the whole world with great affection to our land. Hence, I wonder will the G20 really give us results as great as the amount of money that we have spent on it or will it be a massive loss of money that could, otherwise have been used to feed so many people, not just overseas but in Canada itself.
June 9, 2010 at 11:13 PM
June 9, 2010 at 11:15 PM
When reading this article and the comments, my views and opinions of the G20 budget are very similar to Keerthana and Srijoni. First off, I feel that the government is not using the tax-payers money wisely when it comes to this G8 and G20 Summit. Listening to recent radio shows, I have heard that the government is paying 1-2 billion dollars in order to create a fake lake in order for reporters and photographers to get good shots and pictures. Basically, what I think is that the government is trying to make themselves look good but at what cost? Instead of creating that fake lake, the money could go to better and more effective uses like Srijoni said, the money could be used to help countries with many dying and starving.
A quote in this article struck me, “Canada could pay one-third of the costs of the millennium development goal and save the lives of over 10 million women and children by 2015.” This quote is a small summary/opinion of what I think Canada should be doing rather than spending vast amounts of money on unnecessary things.
I feel that with the Canadian government spending so much money and the public are posing it as a problem, this could be posed as a problem in the soon/later future. “That breaks down into roughly $300 million a year – so it would take three years to spend what Harper’s government has committed to security costs for three days of meetings in Huntsville and Toronto at the end of June.” This phrase in the article shows my point of how this may be a problem in the near future. The government should buckle down and realize what are necessities and what aren’t necessities, because what is more important, luxurious items, or having one of the largest countries in the world to be in serious debt.
In conclusion, the government of Canada should really re-think the vast amounts of money being spent and look at the different options that the money could be used towards in order to benefit everyone for the future, rather than just benefiting certain people for only a small period of time, like the G8 and G20 summits for example.