Now the truth about the costs.

[August1991]

Like I've already stated, and is already fact. Regardless of this 1 billion in cost, Canadians are going to have to accept budget cuts. They're necessary. This G20 expense has nothing to do with it. This argument of yours is completely infantile.

Quite apart from the budget cuts, let`s see Flaherty and Harper explain to Canadains in Flin Flon and Blanc Sablon the necessity of the cuts. Let`s see how Harper will confront the media saavy socialist feminists in Toronto & Vancouver in 2011, after this summit, when they explain the budget cuts.

Shady, I want a PM with all the cards on his side - not this nonsense. Harper apparently chose to arrive at a gunfight without a knife. He`s an amateur.

Edited June 25, 2010 by August1991

[Molly]

I'm guessing Obama alone is probably bringing at least a hundred, maybe two hundred if you count his secret service staff. That's why these bloody things are so expensive, because the heads of state can't go to the bathroom without two dozen flunkeys trailing them.

I don't even buy that. The actual heads of state are the only people whose keep and welfare are the obligation of the host nation. Staffs and delegations are... a gaggle of tourists at no particular risk, whose way may or may not be paid by the nation that sent them, but certainly not by us.

[Shady]

Quite apart from the budget cuts, let`s see Flaherty and Harper explain to Canadains in Flin Flon and Blanc Sablon the necessity of the cuts.

But there IS a necessity for cuts. Even without the G8 Summit. And rational thinking person knows this to be true. The G8 security expense has virtually no impact on our fiscal situation. That is a fact my friend.

Let`s see how Harper will confront the media saavy socialist feminists in Toronto & Vancouver in 2011, after this summit, when they explain the budget cuts.

The socialist feminists in Toronto, Vancouver or wherever else weren't gonna go for budget cuts regardless. They never have, and never will. But they don't represent the vast majority of Canadians.

Shady, I want a PM with all the cards on his side - not this nonsense. Harper apparently chose to arrive at a gunfight without a knife. He`s an amateur.

I disagree. I would love to see the other party leaders chastise Harper for having Canada host the G8/G20 Summit. In fact, the polls show that Canadians favour the summit being held here.

Who's the amateur?

Most Canadians say G8/G20 summits important

OTTAWA—A fake lake, faux Muskoka backdrops and a $1-billion price tag are troubling but not enough to turn off a majority of Canadians to the benefits of summitry, a new poll suggests.

Three-quarters of respondents to The Canadian Press Harris-Decima poll said this week’s G8 and G20 summits in Ontario are important and worth the expense of their country hosting.

Link

No offense August, but the only amateur seems to be you. Harper has 75% of Canadians on his side of this issue.

[Smallc]

But, but, but....it isn't worth the cost:

Canada’s turn on the world stage is worth the cost, business leaders say

Edited June 25, 2010 by Smallc

[August1991]

But there IS a necessity for cuts. Even without the G8 Summit. And rational thinking person knows this to be true. The G8 security expense has virtually no impact on our fiscal situation. That is a fact my friend.

Whatever, Shady. Your call.

Canadians are happy to raise CPP contributions and pay money for a billion dollar three day summit in Toronto.

But, but, but....it isn't worth the cost...

Whatever, Smallc. From your link:

Some of Canadas top CEOs say Canadians should expect long-lasting economic gains from the G20 summit thanks to the rare opportunity to showcase the country and form high-level connections with such growing world powers as China and India.

And the CEOs don`t have to pay much for this summit - taxpayers are paying. Smallc, if the CEOs are so in favour, why are they not picking up the $1.2 billion tab?

-----

This is a huge waste of money and we all know it.

Edited June 25, 2010 by August1991

[Shady]

Whatever, Shady. Your call.

It's not my call, it's called math. Do the math yourself. Budget cuts are necessary regardless of any G8 summit.

Canadians are happy to raise CPP contributions and pay money for a billion dollar three day summit in Toronto.

You would do well as a fearmongering politician. CPP isn't paying for this summit. Why you need to resort to lies and hyperbole now is beyond me.

Whatever, Smallc. From your link:

Smallc, just in case you're wondering. Whatever in August speak means you're right, and he has no response.

And the CEOs don`t have to pay much for this summit - taxpayers are paying. Smallc, if the CEOs are so in favour, why are they not picking up the $1.2 billion tab?

CEO's are taxpayers. But just because one thinks this is a good idea, doesn't mean they should quote, pick up the tab. That's some interesting logic.

This is a huge waste of money and we all know it.

If by "we all", you mean uninformed citizens. Then yes.

Edited June 25, 2010 by Shady

[bloodyminded]

And the CEOs don`t have to pay much for this summit - taxpayers are paying. Smallc, if the CEOs are so in favour, why are they not picking up the $1.2 billion tab?

That's a really good point, August. I don't know why people think that when Business Elites are in favour of something, it's automatically practical, just, and efficient; why we should summon their opinion (self-serving by definition...that's not a criticism, just the way it is) as an almost religious authority is...odd.

[Keepitsimple]

But, but, but....it isn't worth the cost:

Canada’s turn on the world stage is worth the cost, business leaders say

Our continued prosperity depends on Global relationships and international trade. There's a big picture to these summits that is clearly understood by business leaders. The Opposition is predictably trying to win points by bashing the expense......but when you step back from all the domestic noise, even the Liberals know that it's pretty small-minded to say these summits are a waste. Any "vision" includes your global trading partners and what better way to forge relationships and gain common ground than to get together - face-to-face - and actually shake hands and talk.

[eyeball]

As to whether these summits...

...were held on an island, there would be a huge outcry from the Lefties that it was an affront to democracy.

That ship sailed and dropped anchor off said island a long long time ago.

As to whether the Government should have hosted the summits at all - what do you think the opposition and the media would have said if the Conservatives had refused to host the summits and let someone else do it? They would have been lambasted for having small minds and turning their backs on the new world.

It'll be interesting to see how the next government approaches the issue of hosting the things. My bet is that island will start looking better all the time. A cruise ship would be even better.

Edited June 25, 2010 by eyeball

[eyeball]

Our continued prosperity depends on Global relationships and international trade. There's a big picture to these summits that is clearly understood by business leaders. The Opposition is predictably trying to win points by bashing the expense......but when you step back from all the domestic noise, even the Liberals know that it's pretty small-minded to say these summits are a waste. Any "vision" includes your global trading partners and what better way to forge relationships and gain common ground than to get together - face-to-face - and actually shake hands and talk.

You want vision?

These leaders should be working more like representatives on a day to day basis in month(s) long sessions in a Parliament. It's 2010 for Christ's sake.

That said given the vision I recall being presented with 45 years ago I should be reading about this summit from my condo on the Moon.

[Argus]

So here we have it, the truth is out, it's not what the media has been portraying it as. The only alternative is to not have a summit at all, is that an option?

You're mistaken. I think the alternative is to hold a summit but without the circus which accompanies it. Remember that the cost hers is not associated with the actual summit, but with protecting the summit from the array of screwballs and nut jobs which want their 15 minutes of fame. that means you cold hold this thing far, far more cheaply if you kept it away from big cities. I repeat my suggestion they hold it on a cruise ship rented for the occasion, and at an undisclosed location. Keep the hangers on to a minimum, carry out business, and then go home. You should be able to do the thing for under ten million.

Or, given it's the G20, simply hold it in China or Russia, where there will be no demonstrations and so the security costs can be minimized.

[segnosaur]

You're mistaken. I think the alternative is to hold a summit but without the circus which accompanies it. Remember that the cost hers is not associated with the actual summit, but with protecting the summit from the array of screwballs and nut jobs which want their 15 minutes of fame. that means you cold hold this thing far, far more cheaply if you kept it away from big cities.

Would that necessarily be any cheaper though?

After all, you still need security to handle more serious threats (hate to raise the "terrorist" boogie man for example, but its still something that must be considered.) And not only that, if the meetings are held in more isolated areas it means you have to pay more for transportation to isolated areas. (And, of course, any transfer points will also need security.)

[Argus]

Would that necessarily be any cheaper though?

After all, you still need security to handle more serious threats (hate to raise the "terrorist" boogie man for example, but its still something that must be considered.) And not only that, if the meetings are held in more isolated areas it means you have to pay more for transportation to isolated areas. (And, of course, any transfer points will also need security.)

Most of these ships have helipads. Until terrorists get hold of submarines the security risks would be minimal. Send along a frigate or two and you're fine. No hotels required.

[nicky10013]

Here's another boondoggle. Gun registry x4.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2010/06/22/truth-in-reconciliation-pbo-report.html

[g_bambino]

Most of these ships have helipads.

As I just pointed out in another thread, the largest passenger ship in the world right now is the Oasis of the Seas, and it only holds 5,400 people. As I understand it, that isn't adequate for the all the leaders and their delegations.

[Molly]

As I just pointed out in another thread, the largest passenger ship in the world right now is the Oasis of the Seas, and it only holds 5,400 people. As I understand it, that isn't adequate for the all the leaders and their delegations.

So what's the point of the circus placing 'all of the leaders and their delegations' in one place, anyway, especially since it's a sure-fire recipe for having that place get trashed by hooligans?

Pfft! Let the delegations have their party next month, or in another place, or not at all. Frankly, the hangers-on just aren't very important. Certainly not important enough to justify this kind of mess.

Edited June 27, 2010 by Molly

[Born Free]

So what's the point of the circus placing 'all of the leaders and their delegations' in one place, anyway, especially since it's a sure-fire recipe for having that place get trashed by hooligans?

Pfft! Let the delegations have their party next month, or in another place, or not at all. Frankly, the hangers-on just aren't very important. Certainly not important enough to justify this kind of mess.

Baffin Island would have been the best place to hold it. No store windows for the hooligans to break.

[g_bambino]

So what's the point of the circus placing 'all of the leaders and their delegations' in one place, anyway, especially since it's a sure-fire recipe for having that place get trashed by hooligans?

Well, that's another question alltogether that's a little late in the asking for this particular summit.

I do tend to agree, though, that these leaders, especially the prime ministers, tend to have an over inflated sense of self. Does the US president really need 500 people tagging along to one meeting?

[+]

Edited June 27, 2010 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

Baffin Island would have been the best place to hold it. No store windows for the hooligans to break.

And nowhere to sleep. Duh.

[Molly]

And nowhere to sleep. Duh.

They'd only have to tough it out as petty peons for a couple of nights. If I can do an air mattress and a tent for a week at a time for fun, then the overinflated service personnel and clingons can do it for a couple of days for the business of the world.

Ha! There's always the ATCO motel, for a H of a lot less than $1.2 billion!

Edited June 27, 2010 by Molly

[nicky10013]

They'd only have to tough it out as petty peons for a couple of nights. If I can do an air mattress and a tent for a week at a time for fun, then the overinflated service personnel and clingons can do it for a couple of days for the business of the world.

Ha! There's always the ATCO motel, for a H of a lot less than $1.2 billion!

I want to know one thing. How embarassing must have it been for the Harper government to have Sarkozy stand up and say it's going to cost 10x less.

[YEGmann]

Talk is cheap.

Sarkozy just demonstrated his immaturity as a polititian.

[nicky10013]

Talk is cheap.

Sarkozy just demonstrated his immaturity as a polititian.

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.

wait.

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.

[Smallc]

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.

wait.

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.

I can't see how he can say the costs will be that much less. They won't be.

[Topaz]

I can't see how he can say the costs will be that much less. They won't be.

He could do it for less if they do it on a military base or at the UN or even on a carnival crusie ship, or how about everyone stay home and do over the net?