Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

Letters from Fake Muskoka

by Aaron Wherry on Thursday, June 24, 2010 12:34pm - 35 Comments

For the next few days, we’re in Toronto (and possibly Huntsville) for all the fun, frivolity and requisite shouting of the G8 and G20 summits. Breathless dispatches from the international media amusement park to follow.

In the meantime, the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s report on security costs is available to be chewed on. The Globe, Canadian Press, Star, Sun, CBC and CTV have taken their turns. Somehow Mr. Page seems to have satisfied all narratives on this occasion.

Tags: fake lake, G20, G8, Kevin Page, parliamentary budget officer

More by Aaron Wherry

http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

Well, while you're on tour, you may consider adding this to your song repertoire:

To the tune of Bootylicious, by Destiny's Child/Beyonce

Harper, can you handle this?
Jintao, can you handle this?
Obama, can you handle this?
I don't think you can handle this
Whoo!
Grab a plane, fly all night, lookin tired! But arrived…
Motorcades and, crazy rain, weather drivin’ you insane?
In spite of that, attendin' this, there you are,
come and sit! Don't you wanna, meet with me?
Can y’all set a policy?
You got to do right thing if you want to set the world all right, you got to compromise if you gonna fix your banks tonight
Read my lips carefully if you want a policy,
Offer proof you can make it be
But if you look like you’re freaked and can’t manage it
You’ll be squeezed out of talks ‘till it’s time to take off

http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

I don't think you ready for G20
I don't think you ready for G20
I don't think you ready for this
Is my summit too bootylicious for ya Zuma?

I don't think you ready for G20
I don't think you ready for G20
I don't think you ready for this
Is my summit too bootylicious for ya Kirchner?

Silva, can you handle this,
Calderon, can you handle this
Kan, can you handle this
I don't think you can handle this
Whoo!

Economic recovery
Fragile as, e’er could be
Stimulus, works awhile
but it’s not, forever right?
Got to find a, better move
One that works for, all the world
Add on top, you must improve
third world standard of living too!

I don't think you ready for G20
I don't think you ready for G20
I don't think you ready for this
Is my summit too bootylicious for ya Myung-bak?

I don't think you ready for G20
I don't think you ready for G20
I don't think you ready for this
Is my summit too bootylicious for ya Singh?

LynnTO

Have a bilateral meet (woo)
Take a photo, ain’t it sweet(woo)
I can't help but wonder why
Is Harper still in the men’s room, Sarkozy?

Maternal health is the topic of the day
But bring it up and you might just cheese off Canadians
You hope that if you divvy up responsibilities
That the whole thing’ll blow over and you get workin’ policy!

Yudhoyono, oh Abdullah
Van Rompuy, Barroso, oh Merkel, eh' Medvedev, oh, Cameron
Is it gonna work?

I don't think you ready for G20
I don't think you ready for G20
I don't think you ready for this
Is my summit too bootylicious for ya Gillard?

I don't think you ready for G20
I don't think you ready for G20
I don't think you ready for this
Is my summit too bootylicious for ya Berlusconi?

[REPEAT CHORUS x3]
And G20’s too bootylicious for a real lake…

http://intensedebate.com/people/Stewart_Smith Stewart_Smith

Brilliant…. please let us all know when the video is ready for posting.

http://intensedebate.com/people/doug_rogers doug_rogers

Aaron got past the security checks? A billion dollars for security and Aaron got past the security checks?

http://intensedebate.com/people/Stewart_Smith Stewart_Smith

My theory of Aaron as a deep conservative plant just gained some traction.

W.B.

From a distance, the security seems to have ex Harris types in Harper Gov't, and Stock/Toews Reform hardliner fingerprints all over it. Are they there to put a sharp stick in the eye of the protest and knock a few heads?
http://intensedebate.com/people/YYZ YYZ

While the G20 costs seem high, to me the PBO says they are reasonable. What pisses me off most, though, is the extra $200 million for having the summit in two locations.

Reform and Conservative opposotion parties of past would be screaming blue murder if that happened under a Liberal government – and they would be right.

http://intensedebate.com/people/VinceClortho VinceClortho

And what do you think the Liberal response would have been?

Probably something like, "Why dont Conservatives want Canada to play a role on the world stage?"

A has become B and B has become A.

http://intensedebate.com/people/tobyornotoby tobyornotoby

And the rest of us are still left at C

RONDO

And yet i still feel as if the CPC is Fing me in the A.

http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

It's not binary.

It's not a matter of spending over a billion dollars on the summit and not having the summit at all.

It is the decisions and planning that has turned this into a boondoggle – holding the two in separate locations virtually at the last minute, using police instead of military (and with not enough police having to import police from the US and then get them hastily licensed), as well as all of the clearly wasteful spending like the fake lake, the fake stock exchange, the fake lighthouse, the sidewalk to nowhere as well as the obvious pork in Steamboat Tony's riding that has nothing to do with the G8.

Cats

G8 is traditionally held in more intimate locations.

G20 needs to be in large cities because of the accomdations.

I suppose you could have insulted everyone and moved the G8 to the G20.

My question for everyone is why have two summits in the first place ? Paul Martin's idea was costly and stupid.

They should just be merged into a permanent G14. Kick out Saudi Arabia and South Africa, go by a strict admission requirement of being within the top GDP.

Cats wants less summits!

Emily

It was Harper's idea to have back-to-back summits….and Harper's idea to hang on to the G8 at all costs.

Martin was right….it should be at a minimum, the G20
http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

"G8 is traditionally held in more intimate locations. G20 needs to be in large cities because of the accomdations. "

Very true. And very obvious.

So what do you make of Harper's decision to hold both in Huntsville up until 6 months ago, virtually the last minute as far as organizational planning is concerned for an event of this sort.

"My question for everyone is why have two summits in the first place ? Paul Martin's idea was costly and stupid."

Close to my sentiments. Especially when it seems the communique has already been written! Too bad Harper is pushing for the larger G20 (really a G34 since he invited 14 additional countries) than the G8 (really a G20 since he invited two EU groups and 10 additional countries).

If I were Harper, whatever the format (G8/G20/G14/G177), I would push for Canada to be the permanent home for these summits and have the international community pay for their share, become the Geneva of these economic summits. That would fire up Canadian patriotism, I can tell you.

Emily

Here's a thought.

A discussion of the world economy should involve….the world.

Hold it at the UN.

tedbetts

I think that would take something that is already pretty useless and make it completely useless.

At the UN – as much as I think there are lots of things it does well or at least best – we would have economic discussions about bank regulation devolve very quickly into calls for sanctions against Israel or other nonsense.

To the extent these accomplish anything at all, it is precisely because it is not the UN, not subject to their process rules, not subject to UN voting requirements, not swallowed up in tit-for-tat showmanship, etc. The G8/G20 have no formal structure meaning that the civil servants and Fin Ministers can work out most of the issues ahead of time, invite whoever is appropriate, move meetings here and there, etc. Give them some flexibility.

As I said, I'm not sure if they accomplish enough to justify the huge costs, but certainly and without a doubt making it part of the UN would guarantee that they would not accomplish enough to justify the costs.
Emily

The UN holds meetings on a variety of subjects all the time. Doesn't have a problem sticking to an agenda for them either.

Enough with the 'gentlemen's club' approach to the world. That's history.

http://intensedebate.com/people/TwoYen TwoYen

I have been to many G-7 and G-8 meetings, but never a G-20; but my impression is that the bigger it gets, the less effective it is and less likely to last. Already Obama is talking about "too many Summits". Leaders have only so much time in each year to attend summits. My guess is that we will soon have fewer summits and fewer leaders attending them. A G-20 might make sense for finance ministers but not for heads of government unless they are only held at a minimum of every two years.

Emily

We are now dealing with a globalized world.

In fact, a globalized world is what is upsetting the world economy, and the sooner leaders recognize that fact, the better.

http://intensedebate.com/people/TwoYen TwoYen

You are reiterating almost word for word Prime Minister Harper's views in his interview with David Akin. I also don't dispute the fact we are in a globalized world.

But the fact remains that the pressures of too many meetings (don't forget, UNGA, Copenhagen, NATO, APEC, Commonwealth, Francophonie, the list goes on) means that leaders will begin to pick and choose which ones they attend and which ones the send principal ministers to. We can't continue to add new meetings every year or sooner or later the leaders will only be in their own country one day a month.
Emily

Nonsense. Harper has no conception of a globalized world. In the interview it was quite clear that it was news to him there was a world outside our borders at all!

Leaders love meetings….it allows them to look good on the world stage. It beats dealing with dull old squabbles at home.

And the audience back home is usually grateful their leaders are out of the country.

What new meetings? Same ones we've been holding for years. Dumping the G8 woud make one less.

If leaders aren't up to doing their jobs, they shouldn't be leaders.
http://intensedebate.com/people/TwoYen TwoYen

from the Akin interview…

HARPER …So we really are in a global world. There’s not much that can’t be done without reference to foreign policy – especially in Canada….
AKIN: But there’s no playbook for a PM. You don’t get a manual when you take the job. You have to learn how negotiate these summits.
HARPER: … I think the truth is, …some summits have really caught my interest and really engaged me but more so than others. Some summits are much more useful than others.
…I know, for instance, that (U.S.) President (Barack) Obama has had a frustration that he’d like a more flexible approach to summits. You may notice he called a nuclear summit. He wants to call a summit on a particular topic as opposed to just doing an annual circuit of summits. Some of the annual circuit of summits are less productive than they should be.
Emily

I read the interview….and it's obvious he has no conception of what that phrase means.

It's not 'foreign policy' for one thing, and it has nothing to do with Harper finding them interesting or uninteresting. Nor is it some misguided 'charity to the wimmenfolk'.

If Harper understood a 'global world' he'd have hotfooted it to China long ago….more than once in fact…..and he'd be pushing for something quite different at these summits.

Instead, he's going in the opposite direction.
http://intensedebate.com/people/TwoYen TwoYen

OK, I get it. You have irrational and hostile feelings towards the prime minister of Canada.

Now, just calm down and make your arguments using real facts. There is room in Canada for reasoned debate between those who have different views on policy. But when it comes down to name calling with no other objective than smearing someone, the person doing the name calling rarely wins.
Emily

No, and stop with the silly and sexist 'conclusions'. We are discussing a serious event, treat it seriously, not with fluff replies.
Cats

HAHAHA!! I love how easily and quickly you roll out accusations of sexism.

Emily everybody! She does have an irrational hate on for Harper. Is it because he's a man ?

Cats thinks we have a man hater here.
http://intensedebate.com/people/TwoYen TwoYen

I wouldn't jump to conclusions. How do you know Emily is a woman?
http://intensedebate.com/people/MostlyCivil MostlyCivil

"But when it comes down to name calling with no other objective than smearing someone, the person doing the name calling rarely wins"

Oh dear. All that money wasted on "Not a leader" and "In it for himself" ads. Ah well, I guess we'll be seeing spirited policy debates in the next election campaign?
http://intensedebate.com/people/TwoYen TwoYen

…and the "Guns in Our Streets"…yeah, yeah, we can all play that game. But I'd rather not.
http://intensedebate.com/people/MostlyCivil MostlyCivil

No, no, I was just pointing out the fact that recently, that tactic has a fairly good batting average. It didn't work for the "does this look like a leader" chretien ad, and it flopped miserably for the "guns in the streets" ad, but for the last couple of elections, it seems to be hitting the target.. Me, I'm still not sure why everyone got worked up over the Puffin…

I'm not trying to get into the "You started it" argument. because we all know where that leads…

To a passing reference to invading Poland, that's where…
http://intensedebate.com/people/TwoYen TwoYen

Sorry (now, isn't that Canadian of me to apologize).

By the way, I also never understood the issue over the puffin, but it didn't matter since it never resonated. I think the "in it for himself' ads have a policy dimension simply because Mr Ignatieff has never been able to successfully get the message out why he wants to be PM other than because he wants to have a new life experience.He may have lots of reasons about what he wants to accomplish, but so far he has failed to get that message out. As long as he doesn't, he'll have problems. Trudeau was successful because he had a clear message. He wanted to fight for Canadian unity and constitutional change. Ignatieff needs to find a story and then sell it. He'll need luck since, if he doesn't succeed, then "in it for himself" will become more of a statement of 'fact' than an example of name calling. That's my two yen.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Open_Democracy Open_Democracy

I hope the mosquitos and black flies aren't too bad at the fake lake. We don't want the backdrop to be too realistic and really turn off all those hundreds of thousands of potential future visitors to Canada.

http://viableopposition.blogspot.com/

http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

At the fake lake, they're still recoving from tsunami caused by yesterday's earthquake.

PeeGee

Politicians all say that we have to reduce pollution and spend less . Yet these politicians still have too many summits world wide , which costs a fortune in travel expenses and more and more pollution . With todays means of communications there are other ways of having summits , yet these so called leaders are incapabale of assimilating modern technology .
Either leaders follow their own advice , or we have to question their reasons for not doing so .

Its like the EU , which says countries must make economies and live within their means , yet they then ask for a massive increase in the EU budget ( including bigger salaries) , and wonder why people are unhappy . This compounds the problem that the pople who run the EU , the commissioners , are not duly elected , the EU commission is starting to smell of corruption and people are starting to realise .

Something is seriously wrong in the political world , and has to be corrected .