Not the ultimate answer to your question, but here is something ... It looks like the canadian is rather close to the top, definitely not the lest expensive. The key is that they stuffed BOTH summits down our throats at the same time. I am not sure this has ever been done elsewhere before. We are so dumb getting ourselves into such a financial trouble at the worst possible time ....
**********
Summits are Expensive
These summits have become increasingly expensive for taxpayers, who are essentially paying for free publicity for politicians. The just-concluded L'Aquila G-8 summit is estimated to have cost the Italian government a minimum of $300 million.[14] (The price tag for the 2008 G-8 Summit in Japan exceeded half a billion dollars.[15])
Any time a President of the United States travels, American taxpayers must fork over a bundle. In 2006, the hourly operating cost of Air Force One alone was more than $55,000, according to a U.S. House of Representatives report.[16] That does not include operation costs for the other aircraft: the "minimum domestic travel package for the president consists of one Boeing 747, which serves as Air Force One, one back-up dummy plane and one C17 cargo plane."[17] Nor does it include the salaries and travel costs of the hundreds of Secret Service, military, and civilian employees (and their equipment) that are involved in any presidential travel.
Foreign travel by U.S. Presidents is vastly more expensive than the domestic trips measured in the House of Representatives report and requires extensive security and logistics support from the already stretched-thin U.S. military. According to a 2001 study by the non-partisan National Taxpayers Union (NTU), during his eight years in office, "Bill Clinton made 54 trips during which he racked up 133 visits to foreign nations" for which the total price tag exceeded "half a billion dollars."[18] President Obama is already on track to "shatter" Clinton's travel record, having made foreign trips to 17 countries over 22 days in his first six months in office,[19] and so appears also on track to break the one billion dollar barrier for presidential travel during his term.
The mounting costs of endless summits--hundreds of millions of dollars each year--are an increasing burden on world taxpayers. Simply put, there have been too many meetings and too few accomplishments (other than efforts to increase government intrusiveness into the global economy). The constant meetings are also keeping the heads of state away on travel instead of at home, where they could be doing the political heavy lifting and real work that will be needed in order to make the changes necessary to restore growth. At the very least, as the global financial crisis continues to ease and the world economy stabilizes, there should be no more than one "G" meeting per year.
***********
Hosting G20 summit 'will cost taxpayers £80million'
Jonathan Prynn
02.04.09
Hosting the G20 summit will cost Britain's economy £80million, more than four times the Government's official estimate.
As well as the bills for costs such as police overtime, food, hotel rooms and goodie bags for visiting dignitaries, there will also be a big knock-on effect for businesses in London, according to an economic think tank's calculations.
Foreign office minister and G20 special envoy Lord Malloch-Brown estimated the cost to the taxpayer at only £19million insisting it would be "worth it". But Douglas McWilliams, head of the Centre for Economics and Business Research, said this was a huge underestimate as it does not include the impact on the private sector.
He said: "First, transport is disrupted we estimate a cost is lost productivity from greater time spent in transport because of increased security and shut roads of £28.2 million.
"And if a fifth of the workers in central London have to go home an hour early for fear of disruption this would cost a further £24.4million." He added that the taxpayer would likely have to fork out another £10million for all the months of preparation and concluded: "It is unlikely that Londoners and the UK taxpayer will get away with a bill of much less than £80 million."
Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: "An incredible amount of taxpayers' money is being spent on Gordon Brown's political posturing. While he is jet-setting around, the rest of the country want genuine help such as lower taxes."
The Government has insisted that the gathering has been a "budget" summit and Lord Malloch-Brown said: "If [the summit] is the signal of restored confidence in the world economy it'll be worth every penny."
***********
.
