Behind the numbers: The G8/G20 expenses debate, is it really about transparency?

A police officer stands by the G20 fence in Toronto in June. The latest G20 spending figures show the government spent about $200 million on travel, hotels and other expenses during the summit. (Reuters)

It may be some time before we know the total cost of the G8/G20 summit.

In June, we learned through an Access to Information request that the Department of Foreign Affairs spent about $20 million for items as mundane as phone rentals to more interesting purchases, such as the hosting of a "mock youth summit." Foreign Affairs censored much of the material, citing security concerns.

Once the June summits in Toronto and Muskoka were over, the department released another version of the cost-breakdown that was more uncensored, but not completely. For instance, we learned that AVW Telav was the company that received the $2.6 million contract to supply audio visual material.

Now we get the latest information, this time courtesy of a written response that the ministers of public safety and public security were obliged to give Dan McTeague. The Liberal MP made the information - which was also available at the Parliamentary library - public.

The numbers came to us on sheets of paper which had journalists madly scrambling to do something many claim to hate: math. Quick calculations showed both public works and public safety departments spent about $200 million on everything travel, to hotels, to those famous glow sticks we've heard so much about.

The political reaction was predictable. The opposition took the time to remind people of "wasteful  spending" and an overall price tag that will top $1 billion. The Conservatives argued that insuring security for the world's top leaders isn't cheap, and besides, the government is being transparent by releasing the numbers.
 
But is this really transparency?

What we have recorded to date is about a quarter of a billion dollars. In other words, a fraction of the total bill, which we're told is comprised mostly of security costs born by the RCMP and CSIS. Because of security concerns with those organizations, a detailed breakdown of the remaining costs may never come. If it does, the information, as it was this summer when foreign affairs first released its costs, will be heavily censored.

This is not transparency.

If the departments such as foreign affairs, public works and public safety were truly transparent, they would post the summit expenses on their websites, just like they do for contracts of more than $10,000. The data should also be posted as searchable databases, allowing Canadians to determine, for instance, how many contracts are sole-sourced compared to competitive, or which companies or consultants received the most money, and how was that money spent.

Instead, the way Canadians receive the information is when media outlets such as the CBC or
Globe and Mail, post scanned versions of the expenses on their websites.

We posted the documents on our website, but have since built our own searchable database, making it easier to process the information.

So why the big deal about transparency?

You may recall that the government came to power in 2006 vowing to be more transparent than the Liberals under former prime ministers Jean Chretien and Paul Martin. The Accountability Act was the "new" government's first order of business.

However, since then, the government has been criticized for being too secretive. Interim Information Commissioner Suzanne Legault made the point that, south of the border, the Obama administration has encouraged federal departments in the United States to post as much data online as possible. Posting reports detailing how the Canadian government spends taxpayers' money would be a good place to start.

So now back to the latest G20-G8 expenses. What have we discovered by the price tag of about $200 million?

We know that how much the public works and public safety departments paid for items such as accommodation, food, the leasing of vehicles and portable potties. We know that a company named Aramark received the largest contract, $57 million, for food services. And we know a company called Acklands Grainger Inc. received the smallest contract, $58 for "various hand tools."

We also know that $66 million of the entire $200 million was spent through a processed called "invitational tender."

It's unclear what invitational tender means because the document doesn't provide an explanation.

However, a glossary posted on the public works website lists an invitation to tender as: A bid solicitation document used by [public works] when the estimated value of the requirement exceeds $25,000.

But how does that differ from the G20 spending category called "competitive," through which the departments spent about $48 million?

Is this wasteful spending, as opposition MPs charge? Who knows. Canadians need more information before coming to their own judgment. For starters, how about a plainly written glossary explaining the terms the government employs when describing the methods it used to buy goods and services with taxpayers' money.

Is this the transparency that government ministers such as House Leader John Baird talk about when defending these expenses? Hardly.

So where does that leave us in the debate about G8-G20 expenses? Good question.

You can reach me at david_mckie@cbc.ca