Bunk. And double bunk.

We coyotes note with (uncompounded) interest that G8 and G20 leaders visiting Toronto for next month's world summit - mostly a grand (standing) photo-op for the Prime Minister - are now projected to cost Canadians, according to one estimate, something approaching $1.1 billion. With a "B". As in "Bunk".

It's more than three times - closing on four times - the cost of any previous "most expensive G20 summit". The record until now was a paltry $300 million. With an "M".

The billion buck boondoggle arises, says Public Safety Minister Vic Toews, and I quote, probably pretty accurately: "Because since 9/11... mutter spread fear mutter ... terrorism... mutter non sequitur mutter... high tech security!!!!" Huh. Even the lately-habitual conservative defender Rex Murphy couldn't buy that.

Mr. T. is also the government's designated faux-hardass in charge of cluelessly punitive prison policy. As in, "If we build lots more jails and lock up everybody for everything no matter how trivial, crime will drop."

Apparently Tories haven't been reading Statistics Canada analysis showing that, ummm, crime has been dropping steadily for a couple of decades already in the absence of such ideologically-driven programs. Damn statistics, anyway! Never let 'em get in the way of a good media line!

Lately, confronted with, you know, actual costs for building all them penitential buildings that ain't revivalist churches, Mr. T had to do some quick media spin. He now alleges his government's policies won't cost much. Because, hey, having thought deeply about it - possibly for the first time, although what passes for deep in this case would barely cover my doggy toenails if I stepped in it - he'll just double bunk all the new prisoners in existing hoosegows. No problemo!

In the spirit of liberté, fraternité et egalité, we coyotes suggest that if double bunkin' is gonna save so damn much in incarceration costs, howzabout double-bunking G20 leaders? And all of their high-tech security? By Mr. Toews', ummm, logic, if it saves proportionately as much for the G20 bunfest as he thinks it'll save the corrections system - I admit you're free to argue that's complete bunk - us coyotes figure we're back down to only equalling the previous most expensive G20 summit. Bargoon!


Milan said...

The most cost effective approach would be to fly the G8/G20 leaders to some tiny town in Northern Ontario this weekend, have them make whatever decisions and announcements they like, have them fly home, then announce after the fact that everything already happened.

The Taliban/Al Qaeda sorts who have been polishing their AK-47s in anticipation of the big Toronto event will all be seriously disappointed, and we will save a fortune on security costs.

coyote said...

Most of the alleged decisions would have been set up already by political sherpa types. All that's really left for the big show, are the mother pie and applehood announcements.

Me, I'm thinkin' Skype teleconference...

zoom said...

I don't think the outrageous costs of security for this meeting have much to do with 9/11. I think that's the cost of quashing dissent from protesters. I like Milan's idea of flying them somewhere remote.

coyote said...

You're right, ma'am, of course. Yet they often play the terrorism card to justify all kindsa dubious measures.

But, ummm, you don't wanna just make 'em use Skype, like regular unentitled people...? I'm pretty sure that would save even more.

And on reflection, Milan's idea has merit. Long as they stay remote after we finally get 'em shipped there...