HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > 2010 Olympic Winter Games [Archive]


 

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2009, 8:56 PM
mr.x's Avatar
mr.x mr.x is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 12,805
Olympic security to cost $1-billion: federal government

Olympics security costs rise five-fold to $1-billion
COLIN FREEZE AND ROD MICKLEBURGH

From Thursday's Globe and Mail
January 29, 2009 at 4:43 AM EST

TORONTO, VANCOUVER — Security costs for the 2010 Winter Olympics are now anticipated to come in at just under $1-billion, an amount in the upper range of recently revised official estimates and more than five times what was budgeted when Vancouver won the right in 2003 to host the Games.

Federal officials who say they are familiar with the "very sensitive" matter confirmed the budget figure, but refused to shed further light on the billion-dollar package.

With barely more than a year to go before the Games begin, Ottawa has yet to disclose publicly what will be far and away the Olympics' largest single, government-funded item. There was no mention of Olympic security in Tuesday's federal budget.

With taxpayer unease at the price tag of the Games already growing because of the recession and the well-publicized financial troubles of the athletes village, the federal government may be loath to release the full cost of providing security.

Ottawa has also been involved in months of haggling with the B.C. government over sharing security expenses.

Keeping the Games safe from terrorist attacks and free of disruptions from activists has been described as the largest peacetime security operation in Canadian history, with more than 12,000 police, private security personnel and members of the armed forces expected to be deployed.

Yet the original security budget was set at $175-million, a figure derided by experts and International Olympic Committee officials as far too low.

Now, officials are bracing for blaring headlines about the billion-dollar cost of protecting a 17-day event.

Public Safety Canada spokesman David Charbonneau said yesterday that the department would not comment on any dollar figures. "The final costs will depend, in part, on how the Games proceed," he said in an e-mail. "A new cost-sharing arrangement with the province is expected soon."

B.C. Finance Minister Colin Hansen, also the Minister Responsible for the Olympics, is particularly anxious to have final security costs nailed down in time for the province's own budget on Feb. 17.

Mr. Hansen has shown increasing irritation over the failure to reach an agreement with Ottawa, accusing federal bureaucrats of trying to shift unwarranted costs onto the province.

The two sides have a deal to split security expenses 50-50, but only for securing actual venues, not for providing protection outside Olympic sites or underwriting normal operating costs of the RCMP and the armed forces.

"I guess one of my concerns is the way the federal government has approached the overall security number is to include a lot of numbers that I would suggest are part of base budgets," Mr. Hansen told reporters this week.

"If anything, I think the number the federal government will use is an inflated number to what the actual incremental numbers will be."

However, the head of security for the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, which took place a few months after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, said that a billion dollars is a realistic figure "in today's day and age."

Dave Tubbs, a retired FBI agent who served as executive director of the Utah Olympic Public Safety Command, said he was adamant early on, in visits to Vancouver while working for a private security company, that the original $175-million security budget was totally unrealistic. "I insisted it couldn't be done [for that]... I know it's grown dramatically since then."

He said Olympic security officers have to plan against all kinds of emergencies, from shutting down airports and harbours to clearing blocked roads or even preparing for earthquakes. "When you add everything in, $1-billion would make sense to me."

Meanwhile, the head of the RCMP-led Integrated Security Unit for the Olympics, Assistant Commissioner Bud Mercer, said he is not letting budget uncertainties get in the way of preparations for the Games.

"No one is disturbed or unfocused by the lack of [budget] clarity," he said.

He hopes there won't be a huge public outcry when the budget is finally made public. "We are responsible for protecting residents, visitors, the IOC family, athletes and officials. We have an obligation to ensure that while they are here, they are safe.

"There is not a family in the world, which will have their children here as athletes, that doesn't expect them to come home safely," Assistant Commissioner Mercer said.

One potential problem is the federal government's decision last month to roll back a projected wage increase for members of the RCMP. Staff representatives are urging members not to relocate to B.C. for the Olympics, unless ordered to do so.

"There is a swell among the membership because of the Conservatives' [action]," Staff-Sergeant Brian Roach said. "They are not going to be voluntarily putting their hands up."





Warships, fighter jets take part in Games drill
David Pugliese, Canwest News Service
Published: Friday, January 30, 2009

The first major security exercise in preparation for the 2010 Winter Olympics will be launched next week using warships, CF-18 fighter aircraft and RCMP and Canadian Forces units.

The Canadian military and the Vancouver 2010 Integrated Security Unit (ISU) will take part in what is being calling Exercise Pegasus Guardian 2.2 as a warm-up for a larger event involving all federal, provincial and municipal organizations involved in Olympic security. The event is being dubbed Exercise Silver.

The various security events, running from Feb. 4 to 13, are taking place around Vancouver and Whistler, B. C., the site of the Winter Olympics.

As many as six warships based out of Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt, near Victoria, will take part, including frigates, maritime coastal patrol vessels and other small craft. Canadian Forces Griffon helicopters will operate around Vancouver and Whistler, transporting RCMP emergency response teams, while CF-18s will conduct practice interceptions of unidentified aircraft.

Security planners have followed a graduated process for preparations for the 2010 Olympics. Exercise Bronze, held last year, was essentially a planning meeting of all agencies involved in the security aspects of the Games. Exercise Silver is to be a rehearsal of how to respond to various security scenarios.

Exercise Gold, to take place in the fall, will be a final test of the various agencies to see if they are ready for the Games in February, 2010. Planners expect to deal with a variety of scenarios, ranging from terrorists seizing a ferry off the coast of British Columbia to unidentified aircraft trying to approach Games facilities when events are underway.

Officials with the Vancouver 2010 Integrated Security Unit did not return phone calls. The unit is responsible for securing the Winter Olympics and Paralympic Games. It is led by the RCMP and consists of members of the RCMP, the Vancouver Police Department, the West Vancouver Police Department and the Canadian Forces.

Defence Department officials declined to comment.

Government officials are expecting the final cost estimates in the Olympic security budget to be announced sometime in February. The original estimates were $175-million, but it is now believed they could reach $1-billion.

Last year, the Vancouver Sun obtained documents in which the ISU described potential threats to the Games. Although al-Qaeda, First Nation activists and anti-corporate organizations were mentioned, the April, 2007, threat assessment determined that organized crime remained "the most probable and immediate security risk" to the 2010 Games.

A Canadian Security Intelligence Service report obtained by the National Post last year found there is no indication that al-Qaeda or other related groups intended to attack the Games. According to that report, the most likely threat will come from domestic protesters who have already committed a few incidents of anti-Olympic vandalism.

"There is no evidence at this time that any group in the anti-2010 movement has both the intent and capability to undertake attacks at the Games," stated the CSIS report.
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2009, 10:24 PM
WarrenC12's Avatar
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 24,451
I'm happy to see my tax dollars spent on beatdowns for the APC.
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2009, 10:32 PM
mr.x's Avatar
mr.x mr.x is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 12,805


     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2009, 11:59 PM
Spork's Avatar
Spork Spork is offline
Shoebox Dweller
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,784
Now is the time to start your mercenary business!

On another note, as much as I support the Olympics (events and sports are fun, tourism advertising is great) and not support it (IOC is a joke), this security budget is out of control. I understand the need for emergency planning and such, but surely it should have been estimated as higher in the first place!
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2009, 12:13 AM
mr.x's Avatar
mr.x mr.x is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 12,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spork View Post
Now is the time to start your mercenary business!

On another note, as much as I support the Olympics (events and sports are fun, tourism advertising is great) and not support it (IOC is a joke), this security budget is out of control. I understand the need for emergency planning and such, but surely it should have been estimated as higher in the first place!
The original budget in the bid was $176-million, there was no way it could have cost that little in the first place. Even the IOC Bid Evaluation Commission and security experts said it was way too low.

It's hardly out of control, it is what it should be.
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2009, 12:15 AM
cornholio cornholio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,916
^^It is a joke, but what I want to know is how much of this budget includes the use of our military in what amounts to a state of the art training exercise, something they do and would do regardless if the olympic were held.
What im trying to say is the military is here its payed for and it being used for the olympics doesnt really amount to any extra costs as its already budgeted in the federal budget for the military.
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2009, 12:29 AM
jlousa's Avatar
jlousa jlousa is offline
Ferris Wheel Hater
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,371
Exactly, the only real costs are OT incurred by police the cost of private security costs, and some equipment costs. A good portion of the equipment is on loan as a marketing tool by the suppliers.
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2009, 12:54 AM
Canadian Mind's Avatar
Canadian Mind Canadian Mind is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,907
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spork View Post
Now is the time to start your mercenary business!

On another note, as much as I support the Olympics (events and sports are fun, tourism advertising is great) and not support it (IOC is a joke), this security budget is out of control. I understand the need for emergency planning and such, but surely it should have been estimated as higher in the first place!
There are alot of things i can't discuss, but here is the basic military side of things:

Our kit is old, average about 15-20 years. it needs to be replaced. The parts cost alot to maintain the vehicles, and it costs alot to order a new LAV everytime one gets damaged or destroyed.

Manpower, not enough people being recruited to fill in the lower-ranking, low-paying bitch positions. So a guy getting paid at the rank of PO 1st class is doing the job of a master seaman, basically meaning that a guy is getting paid 8000-9000 per month doing the job of a guy who would get paid 4500-5000 per month, which is what the original estimate was based off of. Also add to that they will get separation pay, sea pay, etc. and you are shelling out alot of money for one guy. Each ship is crewed by 300 guys, so it is about 3 million per ship for the olympics just to man the things, nevermind operate them. Plus all the other little details, such as army recce, the tanks, the LAV III's, the aircraft, the RCMP, the emergency service workers who will be on the job basically 24/7... Accommidations at super-inflated prices... It'll really add up.


oh, and 6 ships, including frigates and costal patrol ships likely means one frigate, one destroyer, and four little minesweeper ships. not alot fo firepower in the big picture, and IMO doesn't present an awesome picture of Canada's navy prowess... but I'm an army guy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cornholio View Post
^^It is a joke, but what I want to know is how much of this budget includes the use of our military in what amounts to a state of the art training exercise, something they do and would do regardless if the olympic were held.
What im trying to say is the military is here its payed for and it being used for the olympics doesnt really amount to any extra costs as its already budgeted in the federal budget for the military.
You are pretty close to being bang on. overall the numbers aren't boosted that much by the exercise, as most of us would otherwise be off doing other things anyways,




This post reflects the personal opinion of this soldier, and in no way reflects the opinion of the Army, the Canadian Forces as a whole, and any of it's divisions or other service members.
__________________
"you're eating chicken periods" - Vid
"I love eggs, especially the ones with runny yolks" - Me
"EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW, you're disgusting!" - Vid

Last edited by Canadian Mind; Jan 31, 2009 at 12:56 AM. Reason: disclaimer
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2009, 12:55 AM
djmk's Avatar
djmk djmk is offline
victory in near
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: North Vancouver
Posts: 1,762
i have a sneaky suspicion that the US will probably want security done right and will pay their part of it.

This post reflects the personal opinion of this dumbass, and in no way reflects the opinion of anybody smart as a whole, and any of it's divisions or other smart members.
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2009, 6:28 AM
Spork's Avatar
Spork Spork is offline
Shoebox Dweller
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr.x2 View Post
The original budget in the bid was $176-million, there was no way it could have cost that little in the first place. Even the IOC Bid Evaluation Commission and security experts said it was way too low.

It's hardly out of control, it is what it should be.
Sorry, I tend to oversimplify my posts. What I meant was more along the lines of the estimate is out of control, in regards to what others posted about the incremental costs being all that matter. Similar to the media stating that the olympics will cost $4+ billion when in actual fact we are getting a lot of infrastructure for that price tag.
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2009, 12:56 PM
dreambrother808 dreambrother808 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 4,427

     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2009, 4:47 PM
Locked In's Avatar
Locked In Locked In is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,977
From the Globe and Mail:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090131.wolympics/BNStory/National/home

Quote:

Military brass struggles to safeguard Olympics

ROD MICKLEBURGH
From Saturday's Globe and Mail
January 31, 2009 at 1:36 AM EST

VANCOUVER — With frigates in the harbour and jets zooming overhead next month during the first active Olympic security exercise, residents here will not need a reminder that Canada's hard-pressed military will play a major role in one of the largest peacetime security operations in the country's history.

An estimated 4,000 members of the armed forces will be seconded to Olympic duties in 2010 – far more than the 2,500 to 2,800 military personnel currently deployed in Afghanistan.

There are concerns that the simultaneous needs of both military operations could strain existing resources. Earlier this month, Colonel Christopher Coates, head of the Air Division, expressed worries about having to juggle helicopter demands for Afghanistan and Olympic duties at the same time.

“Yes, there will be a strain for us to carry out both operations,” a military source said this week. “But will we be able to do it? Yes, of course. We can surge,” he said, referring to the practice of boosting numbers to a location when needed. “Being stretched is nothing new for the military.”

Retired major-general Lewis MacKenzie, a veteran of numerous Canadian peacekeeping missions, agreed that Olympic security demands will put pressure on the military's already strained resources.

“Our army fits into Maple Leaf Gardens, with about 3,000 seats left over,” he said Friday. “Of course, the military is pretty good at logistics, at looking after itself. It doesn't have to descend on hotels and dining halls.

“So I believe the military will be able to cope with [Olympic security and combat in Afghanistan at the same time], but it will certainly stretch them, there's no doubt about that.”

Department of National Defence representatives and the head of the armed forces' Joint Task Force for the 2010 Games, Rear Admiral Tyrone Pile, declined comment on the military's Olympic role.

However, Adm. Pile, who is based at the Esquimalt naval base on Vancouver Island, will attend a Monday news conference to discuss security arrangements for the Games. Equipment and vehicles to be used by Vancouver 2010 Integrated Security Unit will also be on display. Details of the ISU's first active training exercise, dubbed Operation Silver, running from Feb. 9-13 in Vancouver and Whistler, are also expected to be announced.

“The public are certainly going to see us,” said Bud Mercer, assistant RCMP commissioner and head of the ISU. “There will be a lot more play than in our previous exercise, which was essentially a table-top operation.”

Two frigates and three maritime coastal defence vessels, some aircraft and a light contingent of troops will participate from the military, sources indicated.

Scott Taylor, editor of Esprit de Corps magazine, said the military's role in Olympic security will undoubtedly be a major challenge. “Obviously, in 2010, there's going to be a huge spike in demand, to be doing two things at once, but it doesn't mean it's time for panic. They've obviously known about it since it first came up.”

While supplying troops may not be a problem, there could be difficulties in special areas, Mr. Taylor said. “When you've got to have explosive experts in Afghanistan and in Vancouver at the same time, that's where you start running into problems.”

Not all commentators share those views, however. Author and military observer Gwynne Dyer said the Olympics will be a great public-relations boost for the armed forces. “Of course they'll have the numbers,” he said. “It will be the guys who aren't in Afghanistan, and they're going to be out there looking pretty, on the streets … for traffic control, crowd control. Public exposure, you know? There's no downside.” The real anti-terrorism work will be done by police and security professionals, Mr. Dyer said.

But John Thompson, president of the Mackenzie Institute, a Toronto-based think tank, said securing parts of the Winter Olympics could be a nightmare, particularly the single highway leading to Whistler.

An advantage the military will have in deploying troops for the Olympics is that they will not require months of extensive training as they do before heading to Afghanistan, he said.

Many soldiers will likely be used in the mountainous areas surrounding Whistler. Last year, the federal government called for tenders to construct and service 10 temporary and “austere” camps to accommodate as many as 1,800 military personnel between North Vancouver and Pemberton, just north of Whistler.

Despite the anticipated use of 4,000 members of the armed forces, the military's 2010 role pales beside the 16,000 federal troops on active duty during the 1976 Summer Olympics in Montreal. Those numbers were thought necessary because of the number of previous terrorist acts by the FLQ.

With a report from Josh Wingrove in Toronto
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2009, 5:05 PM
Canadian Mind's Avatar
Canadian Mind Canadian Mind is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,907
"Not all commentators share those views, however. Author and military observer Gwynne Dyer said the Olympics will be a great public-relations boost for the armed forces. “Of course they'll have the numbers,” he said. “It will be the guys who aren't in Afghanistan, and they're going to be out there looking pretty, on the streets … for traffic control, crowd control. Public exposure, you know? There's no downside.” The real anti-terrorism work will be done by police and security professionals, Mr. Dyer said."


That man is an idiot. The numbers simply don't exist. Hopefully the people will see just how strained the military is and contibute to it, either by joining up or paying for more kit.

As far as police and security proffesionals go, it isn't in the police mandate to handle terrorists or would-be terrorists as we would, and we are the security proffesionals, we've been doing it fairly well since 2002.
__________________
"you're eating chicken periods" - Vid
"I love eggs, especially the ones with runny yolks" - Me
"EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW, you're disgusting!" - Vid
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2009, 5:19 PM
johnjimbc johnjimbc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 766
So when will we see the wall to wall coverage of this horrid additional expenditure, across the nation in news and commentary? After all, there certainly won't be any recouping of the costs of security afterward.

Before anyone takes this the wrong way, I'm just pointing out that in terms of dollar amount, this should be a bigger story than the Olympic village, shouldn't it? Did the credit situation impact the costs of security between estimates and delivery, or was it just a bad estimate?

I just find the disparity in coverage . . . interesting.
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2009, 5:32 PM
WBC WBC is offline
Transit User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Metrotown/Downtown
Posts: 808
I am sorry we have military providing security for the Olympics?!? Now thats an olympic spirit!!! Way to go!!! How about a naval battle in the Burrard inlet instead of an opening ceremony? Or perhaps a forced march of the civilians as an olympic event...This is pathetic...
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2009, 6:02 PM
Canadian Mind's Avatar
Canadian Mind Canadian Mind is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,907
Quote:
Originally Posted by WBC View Post
I am sorry we have military providing security for the Olympics?!? Now thats an olympic spirit!!! Way to go!!! How about a naval battle in the Burrard inlet instead of an opening ceremony? Or perhaps a forced march of the civilians as an olympic event...This is pathetic...
What the *expletive* is wrong with you, would you rather simply have chiniese and russian ship, amphibous units, and aircraft rolling you in and force you to do the forced march instead?

Atleast if we make you do a forced march south and east, which would only happen in the most extreme circumstances (such as invasion, chemical, biological, or nuclear terrorist attack of a large scale), we'll atleast do our damndest to let you go in your cars or put you on buses so you don't have to walk, provide fuel for the vehicles, provide you with food and water, and shelters for your head, all while treating you for any injuries, viruses, or radiation sickness you may have developed from an attack.




And I am suprised that this isn't making more of a dent in the media, but this is probably because most people realise that security is neccisary, and the Olympic village development was a victim to the world-wide financial fiasco.
__________________
"you're eating chicken periods" - Vid
"I love eggs, especially the ones with runny yolks" - Me
"EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW, you're disgusting!" - Vid

Last edited by raggedy13; Jan 31, 2009 at 10:43 PM. Reason: language
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2009, 6:53 PM
johnjimbc johnjimbc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 766
The problem is the Olympic Village issue was NOT covered as being a victim of the world-wide credit crunch. It was instead used a political hammer to attack everything from the last council, the last mayor, the Olympics in general, and P3 partnerships.

I think it would have been refreshing if those lead stories had actually addressed the context of the situation in the context of the world-wide credit crisis, but I never saw that story despite non-stop coverage for a week and a half.
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2009, 7:05 PM
Yume-sama's Avatar
Yume-sama Yume-sama is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Vancouver / Calgary / Tokyo
Posts: 7,523
There will be 6 warships? Does Canada even *own* 6 warships?

That could totally over extend our navy!


Quote:
Originally Posted by WBC View Post
I am sorry we have military providing security for the Olympics?!? Now thats an olympic spirit!!! Way to go!!! How about a naval battle in the Burrard inlet instead of an opening ceremony? Or perhaps a forced march of the civilians as an olympic event...This is pathetic...
I just love people like you. The hysteria makes the World a more entertaining place.
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2009, 7:38 PM
Canadian Mind's Avatar
Canadian Mind Canadian Mind is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,907
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yume-sama View Post
There will be 6 warships? Does Canada even *own* 6 warships?
we own 14 actually, the others i wouldn't call warships, they have no capacity to sink another ship.

would be better off with 30-40 warships. just my opinion.
__________________
"you're eating chicken periods" - Vid
"I love eggs, especially the ones with runny yolks" - Me
"EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW, you're disgusting!" - Vid
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2009, 7:59 PM
Yume-sama's Avatar
Yume-sama Yume-sama is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Vancouver / Calgary / Tokyo
Posts: 7,523
Yeah, I know the Navy has more than that.

My uncle is a Captain in the Navy (based in Colorado... oddly enough) and we always tease him about his rowboats.
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
 

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > 2010 Olympic Winter Games [Archive]
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:18 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.