Public Safety Canada may not pick up security cost overruns

Keating says item not a ‘deal breaker’

Questions remain about whether Ottawa or the city would be responsible for any security cost overruns for a potential 2026 Winter Olympics in Calgary.

Public Safety Canada on Sunday deferred to comments made by federal Sport Minister Kirsty Duncan, who on Friday told reporters the federal government is “not responsible for cost overruns” under the government’s policy for hosting international sporting events. A spokesperson from the ministry of sport further told Postmedia overruns related to security costs — as opposed to capital costs — would not be covered under the federal policy.

“Minister Duncan’s office is best placed to answer the question,” a Public Safety Canada spokesperson said in an email Sunday, after it was asked to clarify whose responsibility those costs would be.

But Calgary 2026 said Saturday it believed Public Safety Canada, the federal department responsible for ensuring the safety of Canadians, would pick up the tab on any security cost overruns. Spokesperson James Millar insisted comments made by Duncan only apply to capital costs, not security overruns.

“Nothing has changed with respect to our comments,” Millar said in an email Sunday, when asked about Public Safety Canada’s position.

“Security and essential services are the responsibility of Public Safety and the RCMP — that includes costs,” he stated.

The question as to who would be on the hook should security costs exceed their $495-million budget is a concern to some councillors ahead of the Nov. 13 plebiscite, with advance polls set to take place Tuesday and Wednesday.

Others remained confident the federal government would pick up the tab.

“I think sometimes there’s some blurred lines,” said Coun. George Chahal, who last week was one of seven councillors to vote against a motion that sought to end the city’s pursuit of the 2026 Games and the scheduled plebiscite.

The notion the city might have to pick up the tab for extra security costs differed from his understanding of the situation, Chahal said.

Such costs “are under the purview of the federal government and the minister of public safety and their department. They should be responsible for that, for ensuring Canadians are safe,” he said.

“I would expect what’s been done in the past will continue in the future.”

Coun. Shane Keating, who also voted not to end pursuit of the Games, said Calgary 2026 has made clear to councillors that security costs aren’t the city’s problem, and that he was operating according to that understanding.

Still, he said, security overruns falling to the city wouldn’t necessarily be a deal breaker.

“The whole package has to be a deal breaker, not one or two little items,” Keating said. “Once the package is completely done and all the answers are there, then I would have to decide whether it’s a deal breaker or not.”

The bid corporation’s hosting plan originally pegged the public sector portion of the bill at $3 billion,

At the end of the day, some taxpayer’s going to have to pay for it, they’re just arguing about which one.

with $610 million devoted to security costs.

On Tuesday night, Calgary 2026 released details of a funding proposal between the city, the province and the federal government with a revised public portion of $2.875 billion. Those savings come principally from a reduction in security budget estimates and revised accommodation costs for security personnel.

Calgary ’s draft host plan also includes a contingency fund of $1.1 billion to mitigate financial risk.

No matter which public entity picks up the tab for potential overruns, citizens will still have to pay, said Concordia University sports economist Moshe Lander.

“Really, what they’re talking about is which taxpayer’s going to pay for it,” Lander said. “At the end of the day, some taxpayer’s going to have to pay for it, they’re just arguing about which one.”

Lander said security costs are generally a federal responsibility, “at least it should be in theory.”

“It really strikes me as being strange that it’s anyone other than the feds that would be on the hook for it, but who knows what the feds’ specific view of the $1.45 billion (contribution) does and doesn’t include.”