# Massive $1-billion security bill estimated for the next month’s G8 and G20 summits



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

> Parliament’s budget watchdog is turning his careful financial eye to the massive $1-billion security bill estimated for the next month’s G8 and G20 summits.
> Kevin Page confirmed this afternoon his office is debating the objectives, approach, timing and dimensions of an investigation into the costs, which appear to have dramatically escalated over several months, to secure the summits that will take place in Huntsville and Toronto over only three days.
> 
> Mr. Page and his office are responding to a request from the NDP to investigate, which they received Wednesday. He told The Globe today his office will debate internally different questions, including:
> ...


Budget watchdog wants to pore over $1-billion summit security bill - The Globe and Mail





> The $930-million the Conservatives say is necessary for policing costs appears to outstrip by far what other countries have spent protecting similar events, even if calculations account for two meetings instead of one.
> 
> Defending the tab on Thursday, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews said the bombing of an Ottawa bank branch on May 19 justifies the government’s security bill. An anarchists group claimed responsibility for the blast, which caused an estimated $300,000 in damage, and warned it would be at the G8 summit in Muskoka and the G20 gathering in Toronto.
> 
> ...


Budget watchdog probing summits' $1-billion price tag - The Globe and Mail


That $930 million is just for security and doesn't include meals, transportation or upgrades to local roads.

That works out to about $12,916,666.67 an hour for the three days of meetings.

* G8 summit Japan October 2008: $381 million
* G8 summit Gleneagles. Scotland July 2005: $110 million
* G20 summit London April 2009: $30 million
* G20 summit Pittsburgh, September 2009: $18 million


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

One word for the next summit: Teleconference.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Good job cons. Now let's try and top it when Canada bids to hold the next one!


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> One word for the next summit: Teleconference.


Exactly!


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Or put them all into one of those bargain basement diesel subs Canada bought from Britain a few years ago. A fraction of the cost of holding it in TO. Even if it should sink there would be no significant loss of life.beejacon


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Please tell me someone placed the decimal in the wrong place! 1 billion for 2 meetings that attract more chaos than hurricane alley! Such extravagant spending when they're already are tens of billions in debt.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Please tell me someone placed the decimal in the wrong place! 1 billion for 2 meetings that attract more chaos than hurricane alley! Such extravagant spending when they're already are tens of billions in debt.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

It does look mighty obscene, doesn't it, Kosh. Who agreed to this dubious honour, anyway? And why is the price tag this go-round so absurdly high? Aren't we going just the tiniest bit overboard with all of the impressively draconian security?

It's a disgusting spectacle.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

The auditor's report on this will be priceless. In the next election I hope the cons are back playing the opposition.


----------



## vfr (Jul 22, 2009)

$1 billion to expand the highway from North Vancouver to Whistler for the Winter Olympics. Close to $1 billion to host a big shinding that won't really resolve anything. Who cares - it's just a bunch of 1s and 0s in a computer somewhere anyways. Not as if there is any _real_ wealth and value behind all the numbers being tossed around the financial markets these days...


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

Korea next, then France. Should be interesting when China eventually hosts the G20

G-20 major economies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Lagerstatten (Aug 23, 2007)

It's called SKYPE? I seriously don't understand where this budget comes from? Can't we just get the military to come in and do everything rather than having the RCMP? Everyone knows that the RCMP is probably siphoning the money into their own pockets. $500 million just for them seems sort of wrong. What the heck do they need it for?

SKYPE it next time and safe the environment a little.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Sadly the billion dollars does not include loss of revenues of businesses which will be unable to serve customers as access to their door will be blocked.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

eMacMan said:


> Sadly the billion dollars does not include loss of revenues of businesses which will be unable to serve customers as access to their door will be blocked.


Or their businesses vandalized or destroyed by the expected hordes of anarchists. The feds pretty much told them to make sure they had their insurance in order. Nice!

Seen a lot of training and dry runs by the security forces these past few days. That costs a few dollars, but a cool billion for this fiasco? Only in Canada. LOL.


----------



## Amiga2000HD (Jan 23, 2007)

I seriously question the explanation that holding the G8 and G20 meetings in the same weekend across two different locations that really aren't, especially given the size of Canada, that far apart is the reason why it is costing about $1 billion. I just don't understand how a 48 hour event could cost that much money, even with the ramp up and tear down on either side.

What I do know is that I'm not pleased that so much money is being spent on so little. A billion dollars is a lot of money and it could have been spent much more wisely, especially at a time when the government's crying poor over deficits etc.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

This is obscene! The solution is to hold the meetings at Base Petawawa or a similar base thats already secure. Have dignitaries fly in directly and use the soldiers to beef up security. With the money they save trying to secure cities and cope with asshole anarchists and the damage they leave in there wake, they could build a 5 star meeting complex on base for the two days that could later be used by the military. I guess the photo ops wouldn't be the same but who cares. Its sad that its come to this but the cost isn't justified. A virtual meeting would be the most cost effective of course and should be considered.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Blaming the Liberals is the latest defence in the Conservative quiver of excuses to try to explain the massive $1-billion security tab for next month’s G8/G20 summits.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Love the way, you inserted your own headline in the link Ottawaman.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Thanks


Fear of Liberal advertising to blame for billion-dollar G20 tab?

Better?


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

BTW For the record Denver and Montreal and others have already discovered that at least some of the so called anarchists are actually police informants planted to give the finest an excuse for attacking legitimate protesters thereby making sure that actual messages of protest are not given any broadcast time.

Vancouver of course just calls on Sgt. Pepper.

If the diesel sub can't be used, then the base at Cold Lake, AB would be a worthy candidate. Be sure not to supply them with plush chairs. Those folding metal chairs we used to have to sit on, in a squirm free manner during school assemblies, would be perfect for this crowd.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Ottawaman said:


> Better?


Equal time!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

eMacMan said:


> BTW For the record Denver and Montreal have already discovered that at least some of the so called anarchists are police informants planted to give the finest an excuse for attacking legitimate protesters thereby making sure that actual messages are not given any broadcast time.
> 
> Vancouver of course just resorts to Sgt. Pepper.


I don't think the G8 or G20 leaders like to think that people don't like them. It's worth a billion to spare their feelings.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> I don't think the G8 or G20 leaders like to think that people don't like them. It's worth a billion to spare their feelings.


A new Ontario "love in" ............ all they need is the ghost of John Lennon telling them to "give peace a chance". We shall see.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> A new Ontario "love in" ............ all they need is the ghost of John Lennon telling them to "give peace a chance". We shall see.


Sadly I believe part of that $Billion+$, is earmarked for a ghost buster sweep. No way will the super elite risk coming face to face with John Lennon's ghost.

I on the other hand think it would be great.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Call the Ecto-Mobile!


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

_*I wonder how many (if any) of those bitching about the cost of the Gun Registry will also think this is excessive....?*_*

G8/G20 costs include $80M for food, lodging*



> The federal government spent almost $20 million — twice the estimated cost — to accommodate RCMP officers in hotels during the G8/G20 summits, according to newly released documents.
> 
> The expenditures include a $4.5 million for the security fence around the exclusive Deerhurst Resort in Ontario's Muskoka region, the G8 event host site, _along with more than $300,000 for sun-screen and insect repellant_ for the police guarding the fence.
> 
> Also detailed are a $3.2-million single contract for shuttle buses and a $2.2-million car rental bill — for a single day.


(CBC)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

G8 and G20: $200 million for bug spray, rental cars, lunch, parking and communication



> While summit spending was lambasted by the political opposition, Canada's parliamentary budget officer, Kevin Page, concluded in a June report that costs of international leaders gatherings have grown significantly in recent years and there is nothing to show that the tab for the G8 and G20 summits was out of line with other countries.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> _*I wonder how many (if any) of those bitching about the cost of the Gun Registry will also think this is excessive....?*_*
> *


*

100% bang on. The Harper government drove a wedge between Canadians over the Billion+ spent on the 15 years of the Gun registry, but all the while wasting over a billion in ONE weekend on the g8/g20.

And somehow they want to portray themselves as the fiscally responsible ones???

gahhhhhhh....*


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

$27k on electronic mosquito traps - zap! Call an election now so the country can zap the Cons!


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

$500k on portable toilets....I'm sure the foreign dignitaries made full use of them! 
Mind you if there was a photo of, take your pick,...harper...baird...clement at the bottom of the bowl, I'd save up for the opportunity to defecate on their effigy.

Call an election now Cons!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

jimbotelecom said:


> Call an election now Cons!


What's the point? Polls have been showing for months now that an election now would return the same minority government.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> What's the point? Polls have been showing for months now that an election now would return the same minority government.


Yep. Calling an election for overspending on the G-20 because a few ehmacers miss the Liberals is hardly the stuff of political savvy.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

The point would be to remove the con artists. They've done enough damage even with a minority. 

Give them the hook!


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jimbotelecom said:


> The point would be to remove the con artists. They've done enough damage even with a minority.
> 
> Give them the hook!


The reality is it wouldn't happen... don't know what _damage_ you are referring to?


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

You know, I'm not a big fan of Harper and his politics, however...

a) Calling an election now would just be spending a lot of money to end up with pretty much the same result
b) Canada as we know it has not fallen apart under a Harper minority government
c) Even if they were viable, I'm not sure I can really get behind any of the available leadership alternatives

The G20 money has been spent. It's not like removing them from power is going to keep Canadian taxpayer money from being overspent again on the next G20.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

non - performance in Copenhagen
The Gun Registry
Pushing severe crime punishment agenda when crime rates are dropping
G7 expenses
G20 expenses
Detainee/torture scandal
massive fiscal waste in infrastructure spending
massive fiscal waste in signage associated with infrastructure spend
becoming share holders in GM & Chrysler
restricting access to information
The Census curfuffle
clamping down on govt. scientists right to publish and speak on anything counter to CON Party interests - Global Warming, The Environment as a whole
Sole source military equipment acquisitions and the associated fiscal over spending

And I can add more....looking forward to giving these bastards the boot.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

jimbotelecom said:


> And I can add more....looking forward to giving these bastards the boot.


Yes, but calling an election now would more than likely not accomplish this goal.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jimbotelecom said:


> non - performance in Copenhagen
> The Gun Registry
> Pushing severe crime punishment agenda when crime rates are dropping
> G7 expenses
> ...


Sorry but this list does not represent damage to the country anywhere and merely belies your own political leanings and agenda and almost all of them are highly debatable. 

You should read Chantal Hébert's column today, she is one of Canada's most astute and non-partisan political analysts, to see why you are so wrong about an election being called now bringing down the Conservatives. Sorry dude, your political acumen needs a little work. 

Hébert: Why a fall election could work for Stephen Harper


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Gotta' love the "don't call an election that Harper can't possibly win" sentiment.

Conservatives always return to "Harper will be great when he has a Majority Government."

We can't have citizens clamouring for elections, well at least, not until Harper and Flaherty rise the poles now can we.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

BigDL said:


> Gotta' love the "don't call an election that Harper can't possibly win" sentiment.
> 
> Conservatives always return to "Harper will be great when he has a Majority Government."
> 
> We can't have citizens clamouring for elections, well at least, not until Harper and Flaherty rise the poles now can we.


You need an attitude adjustment. This isn't about partisanship it is about gauging the likely outcome of an election if it were called now. 

jimbotelecom made a comment daring the Conservatives to call an election now based on the repost of spending coming from the G8/G20 suggesting that this would bring them down. Those of us who have been commenting have merely been talking about why this would not likely be the out come.

Why not give your snide partisan comments a rest.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Neither of them appear to understand that an election now would change nothing at great expense. As for that list of so called damage, much of it was forced upon the government by Iggy and Jack, the clueless brothers. Like Sonal, few is this country can warm up to either of them as "leaders".


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> Neither of them appear to understand that an election now would change nothing at great expense. As for that list of so called damage, much of it was forced upon the government by Iggy and Jack, the clueless brothers. Like Sonal, few is this country can warm up to either of them as "leaders".


SINC: few seem to recall how Iggy and company threatened to bring down the government and ring up massive deficits unless the Conservatives increased spending to a lesser degree. Even Iggy was cussing a blue streak a few months later, about deficits far lower than he demanded.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

BigDL said:


> Gotta' love the "don't call an election that Harper can't possibly win" sentiment.
> 
> Conservatives always return to "Harper will be great when he has a Majority Government."
> 
> We can't have citizens clamouring for elections, well at least, not until Harper and Flaherty rise the poles now can we.


I've never voted Conservative in my life, and it's unlikely I will ever do so.

Even still... calling an election now would not change anything. 

The NDP are not yet a serious contender to win a Federal election and I think it will be a long time before they are. The Greens barely exist in Parliament. The BQ is a one-province party. Liberal leadership has been pretty weak for quite a while and there's a lot of mixed feelings on Iggy among most Liberal voters. 

How is this different from the last 2 elections?


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Sonal said:


> I've never voted Conservative in my life, and it's unlikely I will ever do so.
> 
> Even still... calling an election now would not change anything.
> 
> ...


Perhaps someone elected to the Parliament of Canada may see the wisdom, that the politicians of the Nova Scotia legislature saw, when Premier Dr. John Hamm led the _Progressive_ Conservative Government by reaching consensus with the other political parties in the Legislature in a minority situation.

Nova Scotians enjoyed a period of stable government and relative prosperity during those days. 

That was until Dr. Hamm stepped down and Rodney MacDonald headed the PC's and tried to run government as if he had a majority just like the federal Conservatives are doing now.

So if given the time to govern until the mandated time for an election, does anyone see, a single political parties fortunes rising to a point that a majority would be achievable? 

If not then what is the difference of holding an election when the conservative are lower in the polls and perhaps someone with a brain might govern with consensus in mind?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

BigDL said:


> ...If not then what is the difference of holding an election when the conservative are lower in the polls and perhaps someone with a brain might govern with consensus in mind?


I see how it is now... only those who agree with your way of thinking have a brain. At least now that I know this I won't bother responding to any more of your comments. There is no point in trying to engage in a discussion with a brick wall.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

BigDL said:


> If not then what is the difference of holding an election when the conservative are lower in the polls and perhaps someone with a brain might govern with consensus in mind?


Because in the 2 years between now and when an election must be called, a lot can change that may result in a more definitive difference in the election results. 

I don't think a majority of Canadians are interested in an election right now. 2004, 2006, 2008... enough of this every 2 years BS.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> I see how it is now... only those who agree with your way of thinking have a brain. At least now that I know this I won't bother responding to any more of your comments. There is no point in trying to engage in a discussion with a brick wall.


It's the wisdom of Progressivism, screature. We must allow government to run our lives, but it must continue to expand, even when parties who espouse this are out of power. It's the only way to prosperity.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Sonal said:


> Because in the 2 years between now and when an election must be called, a lot can change that may result in a more definitive difference in the election results.
> 
> I don't think a majority of Canadians are interested in an election right now. 2004, 2006, 2008... enough of this every 2 years BS.


I agree election in two year, or so, increments is a waste of money.

I don't hear any political commentators that foresee the collapse of Bloc anytime soon. 

As long as a goodly number of citizen, who elect their representatives, those representatives are not Conservative and/or Liberal we shall not see a majority government for a very long time. 

It is my wish that the politician that hold office would get over themselves and govern based upon reality not wishful thinking. That is the bases of "a brain in their heads" comment. 

I had hoped that Harper was not the ideologue he has turned out to be. His vow of continuing the voting until the voters get it right, voting for the abolishment of the gun registry is tantamount to the separatists in Quebec that espouse such an ideology.

Harper condemned the separatists, but on his cause it is the proper course of action? 

The Conservative Government are telling gun owners not to pay fees as if the Conservatives have a majority government and will abolish the Gun registry. What a mess they have started and is that governing as if you had a solid gripe on reality?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> ...voting for the abolishment of the gun registry is tantamount to the separatists in Quebec that espouse such an ideology.


This is a monstrous leap in logic.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> This is a monstrous leap in logic.


the intent of the comment was, keep voting until the desired result is achieved. Stephen Harper has condemned the separatists in the past for the same ideology that he now champions for votes on the gun registry.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Man, you can just envision his cheeks puckering up when he posts, can't you?


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

SINC said:


> Man, you can just envision his cheeks puckering up when he posts, can't you?


How do cheeks pucker?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> the intent of the comment was, keep voting until the desired result is achieved. Stephen Harper has condemned the separatists in the past for the same ideology that he now champions for votes on the gun registry.


Like the vote on socialized health care in Canada?


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

screature said:


> Sorry but this list does not represent damage to the country anywhere and merely belies your own political leanings and agenda and almost all of them are highly debatable.
> 
> You should read Chantal Hébert's column today, she is one of Canada's most astute and non-partisan political analysts, to see why you are so wrong about an election being called now bringing down the Conservatives. Sorry dude, your political acumen needs a little work.
> 
> Hébert Why a fall election could work for Stephen Harper


I like Hebert a lot. I have to agree that she's the best analyst in the country. And yes there will not be an election anytime soon. I'm merely venting how much I can't stand the Con artists. Needless to say lots of good ammo being accumulated by the next coalition govt. We may even see a Green MP elected. It's also good to draw out the Con opinions on this board. 

Disagree that the list doesn't damage the country though. It's a matter of perspective.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jimbotelecom said:


> I like Hebert a lot. I have to agree that she's the best analyst in the country. And yes there will not be an election anytime soon. I'm merely venting how much I can't stand the Con artists. Needless to say lots of good ammo being accumulated by the next coalition govt. We may even see a Green MP elected. It's also good to draw out the Con opinions on this board.
> 
> Disagree that the list doesn't damage the country though. It's a matter of perspective.


I don't think the "Con" opinions need to be drawn out on this forum, they are more than happy to freely express themselves, I think you will agree. 

Just for the record, I personally belong to no political party (although I was a member of the NDP in my early university years) and I have voted at on time or another for candidates from all three of the major national parties. 

As far as labels go I would generally classify myself as a "red tory", meaning that I tend to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal. But even this label is extremely limiting as I make up my own mind on an issue by issue basis. I wish more people would do the same. I think partisanship and the party system does a disservice to democracy and the dissemination and implementation of good ideas and social policy.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

screature said:


> Sorry but this list does not represent damage to the country anywhere and merely belies your own political leanings and agenda and almost all of them are highly debatable.
> 
> You should read Chantal Hébert's column today, she is one of Canada's most astute and non-partisan political analysts, to see why you are so wrong about an election being called now bringing down the Conservatives. Sorry dude, your political acumen needs a little work.
> 
> Hébert: Why a fall election could work for Stephen Harper


this doesn't represent damage to the country? And, you're claiming to be, 'non-partisan'?

c'mon now, be honest. 

It's only damage, apparently, when a liberal does it?

The article was an interesting one yes. Though note this little paragraph:



> On the con side, even as they speak of electoral war, Harper and his ministers continue to maintain that they seek parliamentary peace. *That doublespeak could come back to bite them if they sought an election. When it comes to shutting down Parliament for his own partisan purposes, the prime minister is already seen as a repeat offender by a significant section of the voting public.*


The title isn't exactly, a conclusion.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

BigDL said:


> the intent of the comment was, keep voting until the desired result is achieved. Stephen Harper has condemned the separatists in the past for the same ideology that he now champions for votes on the gun registry.


I think the reason for this is rather obvious. Bill C-391 was derailed because of a motion to gut it after it had successfully passed through two readings and denied it it's third reading. PMB's are generally supposed to be free votes and the only way the opposition could stop C-391 was for Ignatieff to whip his MPs and for Layton to put heavy pressure on certain MPs (most notably Peter Stoffer) to flip flop on the issue.

If not for these extreme political measures by the leaders of the respective opposition parties C-391 would have passed easily, remember even with these extreme measures the vote was still 153-151, a one vote majority. 

Harper sees that there is clearly majority support in the House (if the vote wasn't whipped) for the registry being scrapped and it is logical that he would desire to keep the issue alive and bring it back at some point. I would highly doubt that any new Bill will be introduced in this Parliament, but given an election and a new mandate why would he not, it only makes perfect political sense.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> ...but given an election and a new mandate why would he not, it only makes perfect political sense.


As if anything political has been "settled."


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

screature said:


> .... But even this label is extremely limiting as I make up my own mind on an issue by issue basis. I wish more people would do the same. I think partisanship and the party system does a disservice to democracy and the dissemination and implementation of good ideas and social policy.


100% agree. The concept that ones views on abortion and fiscal responsibility must be irrevocably linked is beyond idiotic. That said; I view the gun registry, abortion and gay marriage as the same sort of issue. I see these as smoke screens employed by the politicos to distract voters from far more important issues.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> this doesn't represent damage to the country? And, you're claiming to be, 'non-partisan'?
> 
> c'mon now, be honest.
> 
> ...


I don't see the damage, we are still in better shape than any other G20 nation economically. There have been excesses most certainly, most notably the G8/G20 expenses, but I don't see this as damage to the country. I think it is all a matter of what you see as constituting "damage". To me bad long lasting policy represents damage. I don't see any of that in this list. Some would argue the long form census policy represents this. I don't. It is yet to be seen because we haven't seen the results of the policy as yet and if the data derived in the next census with the changes that have been put in place proves to be "useless" then there will be such a clamour that it will be reversed. Even if it weren't reversed by a Conservative government it would be most certainly by a Liberal government. 

Hey as far as the outcome of a snap election goes nothing is for certain, but I think it is almost universally agreed that we would be pretty much back to where we are now, a deadlocked minority. The only thing that could change this is a coalition and the public has once already made it known that the only way they would accept a coalition is if it were announced before an election. 

At any rate the point was being made to refute jimbotelecom's dare to the Conservatives to call an election now because in his (earlier held) opinion it would bring down the Conservatives. I was merely pointing out that Chantal Hébert's column was actually pointing to a very different possible outcome indeed.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> I don't see the damage, we are still in better shape than any other G20 nation economically. There have been excesses most certainly, most notably the G8/G20 expenses, but I don't see this as damage to the country. I think it is all a matter of what you see as constituting "damage".


At worst, this is an ill-planned stimulus program. But at least the money was all spent on construction, labour and purchasing supplies and services.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

sooo, the 2 billion to the registry, and the ? millions per year, all going to pay salaries, buy supplies, an "ill planned stimulus" program?

Love it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> sooo, the 2 billion to the registry, and the ? millions per year, all going to pay salaries, buy supplies, an "ill planned stimulus" program?
> 
> Love it.


Which part do you love?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

the justification.

"ill planned stimulus". It's brilliant!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Considering it occurred during a period where the Liberals were demanding increased stimulus spending, it's not far off the usual make-work drivel. However, I didn't even support the original infrastructure stimulus program.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

screature said:


> At any rate the point was being made to refute jimbotelecom's dare to the Conservatives to call an election now because in his (earlier held) opinion it would bring down the Conservatives. I was merely pointing out that Chantal Hébert's column was actually pointing to a very different possible outcome indeed.


FWIW Chantal's bias is very markedly towards the Fiberals. However I suspect her reasons have little to do with major issues; things like Afghanistan, health care and education.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

eMacMan said:


> FWIW Chantal's bias is very markedly towards the Fiberals. However I suspect her reasons have little to do with major issues; things like Afghanistan, health care and education.


I think it is reasonable to assume so and it is probably where her heart lies but if that is indeed the case, I think she does an admirable job of holding her bias at at bay and very often providing as neutral/balanced analysis as her proclivities allow, which is much more than can be said for most political "analysts".


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

groovetube said:


> the justification.
> 
> "ill planned stimulus". It's brilliant!


lol

Harper could squat down and squeeze out a steaming pile of poo, and a certain segment of the country would still eat it up as chocolate mousse.

The G8 & G20 were a mess from every & any conceivable angle. If we ever see the breakdown of the rest of the billion dollars I'm sure it'll even be more outrageous.

It'd just be nice if they could own up to their mistakes, but instead the Harper Government is STILL patting themselves on the back saying job well done.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> The G8 & G20 were a mess from every & any conceivable angle. If we ever see the breakdown of the rest of the billion dollars I'm sure it'll even be more outrageous.
> 
> It'd just be nice if they could own up to their mistakes, but instead the Harper Government is STILL patting themselves on the back saying job well done.



Except the Parliamentary Budget Office says the costs were reasonable--and they're strictly independent. Read their analysis to see why.



> Key Points:
> 
>  The PBO was asked to assess the reasonableness of the security costs for the upcoming G8 and G20 Summits in Huntsville and Toronto.
> 
> ...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> lol
> 
> Harper could squat down and squeeze out a steaming pile of poo, and a certain segment of the country would still eat it up as chocolate mousse.
> 
> ...


Well the G8/G20 it is almost impossible, in terms of ROI and ultimate outcome, because the possible net returns are spread out over such a long period of time. Relationship building is a long term project and one that is difficult to audit due to the "fuzzy" nature of their value.

I do think that there was money wasted, but an audited analysis will never be known, as they are forward looking. Clearly it is a strategy to reinforce Canada as a key international/world player amongst the worlds richest nations. So to a certain degree if you want to player in this league you need to display an associated level of "excess" to to belong there. We are talking about meetings held by the richest and most powerful nations in the world. With our population vs. our land mass we are fortunate to be in such company.

It isn't cheap to belong to the most exclusive club in the world and while some may argue the price of admission is too high, we have to count ourselves lucky to be there at all.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Considering it occurred during a period where the Liberals were demanding increased stimulus spending, it's not far off the usual make-work drivel. However, I didn't even support the original infrastructure stimulus program.


right. I forgot that it had to be, the liberals fault.

silly me.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> right. I forgot that it had to be, the liberals fault.
> 
> silly me.


I'd apportion the fault for the Stimulus Program at 90% Liberal, 10% Conservative.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Except the Parliamentary Budget Office says the costs were reasonable--and they're strictly independent. Read their analysis to see why.


Reading what you posted it basically says they don't know, because they can't compare costs to other countries. It also doesn't take into account the idiocy of holding the G20 in Toronto which anyone with an once of intelligence would have foreseen would seriously balloon costs further.

The Canadian tax payers federation (also independent) went through the released costs and ripped them apart and called it a slush fund.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> Reading what you posted it basically says they don't know, because they can't compare costs to other countries. It also doesn't take into account the idiocy of holding the G20 in Toronto which anyone with an once of intelligence would have foreseen would seriously balloon costs further.
> 
> *The Canadian tax payers federation (also independent) went through the released costs and ripped them apart *and called it a slush fund.


'Because that is what they do, it doesn't matter who is in power.... 

All political parties (depending on one group or another's particular philosophical bent) will be condemned for "overspending" in one area and "underspending" in another.... 

"Same as it ever was..."


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> Reading what you posted it basically says they don't know, because they can't compare costs to other countries.


They can compare the securoty portion--the largest part--which was comparable. They also mention that the party in power has been reluctant to be as transparent as the Conservatives in releasing cost information. Damned if you do...


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

screature said:


> I think the reason for this is rather obvious. Bill C-391 was derailed because of a motion to gut it after it had successfully passed through two readings and denied it it's third reading. *PMB's are generally supposed to be free votes and the only way the opposition could stop C-391 was for Ignatieff to whip his MPs and for Layton to put heavy pressure on certain MPs (most notably Peter Stoffer) to flip flop on the issue.**
> 
> If not for these extreme political measures by the leaders of the respective opposition parties C-391 would have passed easily, remember even with these extreme measures the vote was still 153-151, a one vote majority.
> 
> Harper sees that there is clearly majority support in the House (if the vote wasn't whipped) for the registry being scrapped and it is logical that he would desire to keep the issue alive and bring it back at some point. I would highly doubt that any new Bill will be introduced in this Parliament, but given an election and a new mandate why would he not, it only makes perfect political sense.


*Note: the portion of the quote in bold is to highlight the area for the question being asked.

Why is it, that all credible media outlets, did not state Peter Stoffer bowed to pressure from Jack Layton?

The quote by Stoffer printed says “At the end of the day, I have to represent my constituents. I have to give careful consideration to both sides, even though my long-held views are very well known and very public,” he said in Fall River, Nova Scotia.

Mr. Stoffer said 62 per cent of those who live in his riding support the controversial gun registry. And he called his own actions a “failure of leadership in this riding.”

Why is the proposition put forward that "Layton to put heavy pressure on certain MPs (most notably Peter Stoffer) to flip flop on the issue." When no such fact is offered or reported for the change of position by Peter Stoffer ? 

Where is the evidence that pressure by the Leader of the ND Party was the reason Peter Stoffer changed his vote on the abolishment of the Gun Registry?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I'd apportion the fault for the Stimulus Program at 90% Liberal, 10% Conservative.


Given the liberals were kicked out of power 4 years ago, that's some pretty fantastic stuff.

Pretty powerful stuff them liberals. They account for 90% of the blame when they're not even in power!

Them conservatives must be pretty serious push overs. Or, just plain brainless I guess. 

Poor hapless cons. Hoodwinked by dem wascally wiberals.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> Given the liberals were kicked out of power 4 years ago, that's some pretty fantastic stuff.


They lost all of their power to influence politics did they? What a simplistic world you inhabit.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

screature said:


> 'Because that is what they do, it doesn't matter who is in power....
> 
> All political parties (depending on one group or another's particular philosophical bent) will be condemned for "overspending" in one area and "underspending" in another....
> 
> "Same as it ever was..."


I agree, all government parties overspend. The liberals have done it in the past, and i'm sure they'll do it again.

BUT they also don't run on the platform of being the party of fiscal responsibility and reduced government spending. The Harper government blew $1.2 BILLION for 2 days. That makes liberal spending seem scrooge-like.

And how that money was spent is disturbing. How does anyone spend $300,000 on F'ing SUNSCREEN???? I can't fathom how it's possible to even USE that much in 2 days! Did they fill the fake lake with it? $14,000 on GLOWSTICKS!?!?!? It'd take all the ravers in the country months to use up that many.

And even after being forced to release the info they have the nerve to pretend they did a good job. And their supporters are all too eager to excuse the incompetence.



Macfury said:


> They can compare the securoty portion--the largest part--which was comparable. They also mention that the party in power has been reluctant to be as transparent as the Conservatives in releasing cost information. Damned if you do...


Except the conservatives DIDN'T release the cost breakdown of the actual security. It's just a $900 million dollar expense. If they ever do actually release THAT breakdown I wouldn't be surprised if it's equally outrageous (officers getting quadruple overtime? ...etc...etc..)


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> They lost all of their power to influence politics did they? What a simplistic world you inhabit.


The conservative government are ruled, no, FORCED, 90% by the opposition.

90%?

And you want to throw around the word 'simplistic'?

ha ha. Funny you are.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> I agree, all government parties overspend. The liberals have done it in the past, and i'm sure they'll do it again.
> 
> BUT they also don't run on the platform of being the party of fiscal responsibility and reduced government spending. The Harper government blew $1.2 BILLION for 2 days. That makes liberal spending seem scrooge-like.
> 
> ...



I agree. The point made by the PBO is that this is par for the course. And par for the course is not acceptable to me. I don't even want to see that group of sad sack "leaders" meet here at all--let them use an online chat service. However, you won't hear the likes of Dalton McGuinty complain because this amounted to stimulus spending in Canada's emerging have-not province.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

BigDL said:


> *Note: the portion of the quote in bold is to highlight the area for the question being asked.
> 
> Why is it, that all credible media outlets, did not state Peter Stoffer bowed to pressure from Jack Layton?
> 
> ...



Chronicle Herald

Pressure on NDP doomed bill



> ...The NDP, which is always in danger of being overwhelmed by the Liberals, suddenly had a hot potato in its lap. Layton juggled it pretty effectively, but it didn’t look like fun.
> 
> Layton was under terrible pressure because he was in no position to take the blame for the death of the registry. That would have been bad for urban MPs like Megan Leslie, but disastrous for Thomas Mulcair, his deputy leader, who won the longtime Liberal Montreal seat of Outremont in a byelection in 2007, which was a disaster for Stephane Dion...
> 
> ...


Chronicle Herald

Former NDP leaders tried to sway Stoffer 



> MP Peter Stoffer says former NDP leaders Alexa McDonough and Ed Broadbent called him to talk about the long-gun registry before he decided to change his vote...
> 
> ..."They did call me and offer me advice," Stoffer said Tuesday. "They basically said you should really consider what the leader is trying to do, which is find common ground. They both said that."
> 
> ...


Of course Stoffer says there was no "pressure", that is the spin. But It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that when two former leaders of the party call you about the matter as well as "discussions" with your own leader this amounts to pressure.

Why would a man who prides himself on his credibility suddenly flip flop on an issue that he has steadfastly maintained his position on for years? Because he suddenly conducts a phone survey on the issue himself? Hardly scientific and why after all these years does he suddenly do so now and gee didn't he make all those 3000 calls awfully quick.

Sorry I don't buy it nor does anyone else aside from his and NDP supporters. If the word "pressure" is too strong a word for you then lets just say he was "convinced" through discussions with high level NDP heavy weights to change his mind after all these years. Gee I wonder what would make him do that? A phony poll, I highly doubt it.

He was pretty obviously asked to "take one for the team", as he, if any one could, suffer the electoral consequences and still win his seat in another election.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

↑

Exactly, good post screature.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

one can assume that the conservative support in the polls should reflect the overwhelming support from Canadians, on this issue.

right?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> one can assume that the conservative support in the polls should reflect the overwhelming support from Canadians, on this issue.
> 
> right?


No.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Macfury said:


> I agree. The point made by the PBO is that this is par for the course. And par for the course is not acceptable to me. I don't even want to see that group of sad sack "leaders" meet here at all--let them use an online chat service. However, you won't hear the likes of Dalton McGuinty complain because this amounted to stimulus spending in Canada's emerging have-not province.


Ok great, that's all I want to hear. I just couldn't bear to see anyone excuse that sort of spending just because their party of choice ran the show, because that's insane. I also agree that McGuinty came off as a total douchebag during the G20 mess, and he won't be getting my vote in the future.



screature said:


> He was pretty obviously asked to "take one for the team", as he, if any one could, suffer the electoral consequences and still win his seat in another election.


It needs to be pointed out (again) that Harper pulled the same flip flop (albeit in the other direction) 15 years ago. I really can't see how conservatives can complain about this when their leader is just as guilty of the same hypocrisy (or party peer pressure...whatever you want to call it)


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> It needs to be pointed out (again) that Harper pulled the same flip flop (albeit in the other direction) 15 years ago. I really can't see how conservatives can complain about this when their leader is just as guilty of the same hypocrisy (or party peer pressure...whatever you want to call it)


To what are you specifically referring? Not that I doubt what you are saying, I just don't know what your statement is in reference to.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

screature said:


> No.


thanks for an honest answer.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> thanks for an honest answer.


In all honesty I think, as the vote this week demonstrated, the country is pretty evenly divided on a riding by riding basis, i.e., MPs represent a riding and thus a vote in the House.

I will say this though, I believe that those who oppose the registry, in general, are less directly affected by its impositions. In other-words, those that oppose the registry are more likely to be law abiding gun owners than those who support it. Most notably because those who support it tend to be urban dwellers who do not own long guns and so the registry does not mean any personal inconvenience/cost to them. They support it based on philosophical reasons more than on any actual personal pragmatic reason.

The division tends to point to an urban/rural divide on the issue... one that I don't think will anytime soon be definitively resolved.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

screature said:


> In all honesty I think, as the vote this week demonstrated, the country is pretty evenly divided on a riding by riding basis, i.e., MPs represent a riding and thus a vote in the House.
> 
> I will say this though, I believe that those who oppose the registry, in general, are less directly affected by its impositions. In other-words, those that oppose the registry are more likely to be law abiding gun owners than those who support it. Most notably because those who support it tend to be urban dwellers who do not own long guns and so the registry does not mean any personal inconvenience/cost to them. They support it based on philosophical reasons more than on any actual personal pragmatic reason.
> 
> The division tends to point to an urban/rural divide on the issue... one that I don't think will anytime soon be definitively resolved.


"personal inconvenience", like, a bullet to the head? 

Yeah it's such a b* to register your firearm, they handcuff you, put you in jail over night, and you get bread and water.

Yeah I suppose us "elite" urban dwellers are pretty mouthy. After you (as I have a number of years ago...) seen someone take a rifle and put a bullet into someone's head in front of your apartment, you tend to have a "philosophical reason" to support it.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

screature said:


> To what are you specifically referring? Not that I doubt what you are saying, I just don't know what your statement is in reference to.


Harper initially supported long-gun registry


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> Yeah I suppose us "elite" urban dwellers are pretty mouthy. After you (as I have a number of years ago...) seen someone take a rifle and put a bullet into someone's head in front of your apartment, you tend to have a "philosophical reason" to support it.


Sorry, but these emotional stories don't make for effective argument. You feel the Long Gun Registry would have caused that person to choose another weapon?

I once had someone point a pistol at me out of a car window and ask me if I wanted to die. That doesn't make my argument about gun control either stronger or weaker.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I've had long guns pointed directly in my face at close range on two occasions. One was held by a so-called "warrior" at the Anicinabe Park occupation in the 70s and another pointed at me through my office window at eye level with a deranged military type. The former was an order to vamoose, which I did. The latter prompted me to dive and roll out of the office, which I did.

I favoured no long gun registry them, nor do I now, even after my eldest son's best friend stuck a long gun in his mouth and pulled the trigger ending his life seven short years ago.

So witnessing a long gun death, which I have also seen with my own eyes, does nothing to make me support a registry that penalizes farmers, ranchers, hunters and target shooters.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Sorry, but these emotional stories don't make for effective argument. You feel the Long Gun Registry would have caused that person to choose another weapon?
> 
> I once had someone point a pistol at me out of a car window and ask me if I wanted to die. That doesn't make my argument about gun control either stronger or weaker.


You completely missed the point. And apparently, Sinc the "I experienced everything you did ten times over so I'm KING and therefore you mean squat' missed it too. It wasn't an emotional argument. It's taking this "elite urban dweller" crap and mocking you and anyone who spouts it with it.

It makes no difference what someone's position is on the registry, where someone lives doesn't automatically make their opinion invalid.

Such is the conservative thinking apparently. And their incessant need to create a division between regions.

Stupidity.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> You completely missed the point. And apparently, Sinc the "I experienced everything you did ten times over so I'm KING and therefore you mean squat' missed it too.


Never said it didn't mean anything gt, but when you work in the industry I did for over 40 years and lived as long as I have, you tend to have experienced more of life than you sometimes wished. Sorry if that bothers you, but that's the way it was and the way it is. Live with it.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> Never said it didn't mean anything gt, but when you work in the industry I did for over 40 years and lived as long as I have, you tend to have experienced more of life than you sometimes wished. Sorry if that bothers you, but that's the way it was and the way it is. Live with it.


Yes Sinc, we get it. Even though you in general don't know me or others from adam, you are only too happy to wallop anyone with how great your experience is, and how right you are.

It seems to be very important to you.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> "personal inconvenience", like, a bullet to the head?
> 
> Yeah it's such a b* to register your firearm, they handcuff you, put you in jail over night, and you get bread and water.
> 
> Yeah I suppose us "elite" urban dwellers are pretty mouthy. After you (as I have a number of years ago...) seen someone take a rifle and put a bullet into someone's head in front of your apartment, you tend to have a "philosophical reason" to support it.


Sigh.. I thought we were having a reasoned conversation here... I am sorry for your experience gt. I realize terrible things happen every day... just like the young couple who were mowed down by a young 20 year old with a car a couple of weeks ago here in Ottawa... I am sure his car was registered, did it make his unfortunate victims any safer? It would appear not.

I don't know why you feel the need to take the level of discourse down to such a base and confrontational level. Can't we just discuss issues without the the need for such drama? We all know people are killed by guns all the time, the question is does the long gun registry make us any safer/less likely to experience such a situation because of its existence?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

screature said:


> Sigh.. I thought we were having a reasoned conversation here... I am sorry for your experience gt. I realize terrible things happen every day... just like the young couple who were mowed down by a young 20 year old with a car a couple of weeks ago here in Ottawa... I am sure his car was registered, did it make his unfortunate victims any safer? It would appear not.
> 
> I don't know why you feel the need to take the level of discourse down to such a base and confrontational level. Can't we just discuss issues without the the need for such drama? We all know people are killed by guns all the time, the question is does the long gun registry make us any safer/less likely to experience such a situation because of its existence?


it was a directed at this stupidity of "personal inconvenience". I've had it with this nonsense about 'urban elites', and this continued nonsense that somehow because one lives in a city, one can't possibly have an opinion because it apparently has very little to do with us.

My experience doesn't not make an argument, which was the original point before captain "I've experienced more than you so I'm RIGHT GODAMMIT!" announced his experience trumps all.

If you or other conservative supporters don't wish to have it thrown back at you, don't throw the grenade.

Simple.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> Harper initially supported long-gun registry


Thanks for the link i-rui, much appreciated. 

I was out of politics (at least national at the time) and wasn't aware of this. I will not not try and speak for Stephen Harper and his reasons for doing so at the time as I have no idea.

The only major difference that I can site is that at the time he was in opposition and the Bill you reference was a government Bill which is expected to be whipped whereas the Bill under consideration was a Private Members Bill which typically is not.

I have no idea what his motivations were at the time to flip flop his vote... but I would suspect they were political and not strongly philosophical.

All I can say is that what happened 15 years ago in politics is a lifetime... Remember even Lucien Bouchard even says now that separation is a misbegotten notion.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> it was a directed at this stupidity of "personal inconvenience". I've had it with this nonsense about 'urban elites', and this continued nonsense that somehow because one lives in a city, one can't possibly have an opinion because it apparently has very little to do with us.
> 
> My experience doesn't not make an argument, which was the original point before captain blowhard announced his experience trumps all.
> 
> ...


I don't think your opinion is invalid at all, as you seem to think. I am an urbanite as well, I am merely trying to point out the divide and the fact that I think its rather undeniable that for most urbanites the long gun registry is largely a philosophical debate whereas for rural gun owners it is very real and personal indeed. I am truly sorry for your experience, but you must admit it is not within the norm.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Quit pressuring me screature, I mean it, or I shall go to his eminence with all due haste.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

screature said:


> I don't think your opinion is invalid at all, as you seem to think. I am an urbanite as well, I am merely trying to point out the divide and the fact that I think its rather undeniable that for most urbanites the long gun registry is largely a philosophical debate whereas for rural gun owners it is very real and personal indeed. I am truly sorry for your experience, but you must admit it is not within the norm.


my experience isn't the point. What is, is that I'm certainly not the only one in the city to watch a bullet enter someone's head. And unfortunately, I won't be the last. It was macfury who decided my post was an 'emotional one'. I'm just saying that as an urban dweller, we are -certainly- not... without 'personal inconvenience. Far, from it.

My point further, is until people can stop pandering to Harper's insistence that we divide regions, pitting one against the other and highlighting only the perceived differences, a compromise, or a better solution, will never happen.

My response was in no way intended as a personal experience drama, nor was it to encourage oneupmanship to cancel it out.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> My response was in no way intended as a personal experience drama, nor was it to encourage oneupmanship to cancel it out.


If you can't live with real world experience gt, at least give up with the snide remarks. It happened. For real. No oneupmanship nor put down intended. No better than you for any reason. No gain for me. Just a recount of what happened to me personally. You probably have some experiences in drumming that I don't, but I don't carp about it at every opportunity.

Accept it, or at least have the decency to stop whining about it.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Sorry Sinc, but I have no idea what the hell you are talking about, or why. Once again. You seemed to have taken upon yourself to holler "well me TOO!!!". 

congratulations. You too.

But it doesn't appear to have anything do do whatsoever with what I was talking about.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Well gt, you have just confirmed what I have thought all along. My bet is that anyone reading this thread will see through your last post too. Sorry about that.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> Well gt, you have just confirmed what I have thought all along. My bet is that anyone reading this thread will see through your last post too. Sorry about that.


Let me take a crack at that SINC: "I never said that!! LOL!!! Round and round she goes!!"


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

the pair of you need to stop and think about what was said.

Once again, it was not an invitation to holler 'well I had a gun in MY FACE [email protected]!!!!' Go get a medal...

It was a response to the notion that somehow, 'urban elites' are insulated from any -personal inconvenience-.

I think, the concept, is quite simple. But no it needs to be turned into a drama doesn't it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Got that SINC? Everyone has got it wrong...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

just you two.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

You guys are hi-larious.:lmao:

The way I see it is that it does not make an iota of difference who sits as the ruling party in Ottawa. As long as Canada remains a member of the G8/G20 they are obligated to host this useless event and consequently pay the price.

Do I think the cost was excessive? You _betchya_, but it wasn't the bozos in parliament that ran up these costs. It was the organizing bureaucrats and the police agencies involved that milked the tax payer. I'm also sure all the vendors and suppliers made hefty profits...with no volume discounts for the gov't. 

The money has been spent and the final tally is still being tabulated, but in my not so humble opinion it would not have mattered who was in power. The cost would have been the same.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

BigDL said:


> Quit pressuring me screature, I mean it, or I shall go to his eminence with all due haste.


What has the Pope got to do with this?


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

kps said:


> you guys are hi-larious.:lmao:
> 
> The way i see it is that it does not make an iota of difference who sits as the ruling party in ottawa. As long as canada remains a member of the g8/g20 they are obligated to host this useless event and consequently pay the price.
> 
> ...


+1


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

kps said:


> You guys are hi-larious.:lmao:
> 
> The way I see it is that it does not make an iota of difference who sits as the ruling party in Ottawa. As long as Canada remains a member of the G8/G20 they are obligated to host this useless event and consequently pay the price.
> 
> ...


wait a second, so what you're saying is, all this rhetoric about the other guy spending too much, wasting tax payers money, that isn't the government's fault at all?

Well maybe that shouldn't be a topic at elections? Harper's whole original election platform, a total sham?


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

groovetube said:


> wait a second, so what you're saying is, all this rhetoric about the other guy spending too much, wasting tax payers money, that isn't the government's fault at all?
> 
> Well maybe that shouldn't be a topic at elections? Harper's whole original election platform, a total sham?


Me thinks there's a big difference between regular budgets and this kind of a one time silly event where (as it appears) there is no budget.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

kps said:


> You guys are hi-larious.:lmao:
> 
> The way I see it is that it does not make an iota of difference who sits as the ruling party in Ottawa. As long as Canada remains a member of the G8/G20 they are obligated to host this useless event and consequently pay the price.
> 
> ...


The only possible flaw in that thesis is who picked the most populous city in the most populous province with the most desirable get-away locations during the most popular time (high season) of the year to visit these destinations?

Which person with a can do attitude didn't consider how much more it could possibly cost?


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

BigDL said:


> The only possible flaw in that thesis is who picked the most populous city in the most populous province with the most desirable get-away locations during the most popular time (high season) of the year to visit these destinations?
> 
> Which person with a can do attitude didn't consider how much more it could possibly cost?


Okie-dokie, it was "high season" everywhere else too, perhaps it would have been better in Banff...oh wait, not enough hotel rooms for all the G20 attendees. Hmmm, let's see which city might perhaps have enough hotel rooms....Toronto perhaps?

I'll grant you the G8 in Muskoka...Clements riding, but it was held there before under the Libs...no?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

kps said:


> Me thinks there's a big difference between regular budgets and this kind of a one time silly event where (as it appears) there is no budget.


who draws this distinction? Is this the big convenient excuse for the conservatives? They're not responsible for the overspending of over a billion dollars? 

Can you just imagine, the screaming if it were the liberals?

This government campaigned on accountability. So now they are gonna wear it well or get booted eventually.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

kps said:


> Okie-dokie, it was "high season" everywhere else too, perhaps it would have been better in Banff...oh wait, not enough hotel rooms for all the G20 attendees. Hmmm, let's see which city might perhaps have enough hotel rooms....Toronto perhaps?
> 
> I'll grant you the G8 in Muskoka...Clements riding, but it was held there before under the Libs...no?


out of curiosity, what was the price tag comparison for this one?


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

kps said:


> Okie-dokie, it was "high season" everywhere else too, perhaps it would have been better in Banff...oh wait, not enough hotel rooms for all the G20 attendees. Hmmm, let's see which city might perhaps have enough hotel rooms....Toronto perhaps?
> 
> I'll grant you the G8 in Muskoka...Clements riding, but it was held there before under the Libs...no?


Plenty of excellent suggestions earlier. Personally I favoured using one of the diesel subs Canada bought from GB. Zero additional security costs, 5#!t on a shingle for meals. The world leaders would certainly have been treated in a manner they richly deserve.beejacon Had the sub sunk Canada would have just been doing its bit to help rid the planet of vermin.

Cold Lake, AB or tents in a field in northern Saskatchewan would have been even more frugal and equally appropriate.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

maybe they should have had it up in fort mcmurry, and fed them the fish caught in the region. Downstream from the tar sands. You now, to show us urban elites how safe it all is.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

eMacMan said:


> Plenty of excellent suggestions earlier. Personally I favoured using one of the diesel subs Canada bought from GB. Zero additional security costs, 5#!t on a shingle for meals. The world leaders would certainly have been treated in a manner they richly deserve.beejacon Had the sub sunk Canada would have just been doing its bit to help rid the planet of vermin.
> 
> Cold Lake, AB or tents in a field in northern Saskatchewan would have been even more frugal and equally appropriate.


Good point!

I wonder about the stated or intended purpose of meetings such as G8 or G20. 

I don't feel we need to go as far as tents and field rations, but an out the way location seems a better idea. Less distractions, more time to be isolated and focus on the agenda when convened. Security would be easier in an isolated location as well.

Why do these "leader" meet? I mean, really, why?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

weeeeelll, the liberals did it, so, it must be ok. Or, they made them do it.

Snap I'm mixed up now.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

groovetube said:


> weeeeelll, the liberals did it, so, it must be ok. Or, they made them do it.
> 
> Snap I'm mixed up now.


Well ya gotta love the devil made me do it defence.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

well the quiet realization that their party is spending more and faster than the liberals can't be easy to swallow. So we need to come up with more and more plausible theories.

Yeah. The bureaucrats. They suddenly started goin willy nilly when the conservatives took power. Somebody... STOP THEM!!!

Damn.... bureaucrats.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

groovetube said:


> who draws this distinction? Is this the big convenient excuse for the conservatives? They're not responsible for the overspending of over a billion dollars?
> 
> Can you just imagine, the screaming if it were the liberals?
> 
> This government campaigned on accountability. So now they are gonna wear it well or get booted eventually.


It's not anyone's convenient excuse, it's my opinion and you may feel free to disagree. The mistake was in holding the meetings in Canada to begin with. The cost most certainly is excessive to the point of being obscene and if you think I'm defending those ridiculous excesses ...you'd be wrong. What I'd like to see is the complete break-down of the costs, who made what, on what and why. That is where the accountability issue you mention will play a role. 

With respect to your second paragraph, I guess it's the same kind of screaming I'm hearing here from all the Harper haters. LOL The funny thing is, when it comes to government excesses and waste, I'm an equal opportunity "hater" and not a partisan "hater".


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

groovetube said:


> out of curiosity, what was the price tag comparison for this one?


If you're referring to a comparison between former G8 meetings in Muskoka, I don't know, but this last meeting included security for 20,000 G20 delegates on top of the G8 delegates. Two different and distant venues, etc.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

groovetube said:


> well the quiet realization that their party is spending more and faster than the liberals can't be easy to swallow. So we need to come up with more and more plausible theories.
> 
> Yeah. The bureaucrats. They suddenly started goin willy nilly when the conservatives took power. Somebody... STOP THEM!!!
> 
> Damn.... bureaucrats.


Who do you think runs the politicians? Just the corporations? LOL


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

kps said:


> It's not anyone's convenient excuse, it's my opinion and you may feel free to disagree. The mistake was in holding the meetings in Canada to begin with. The cost most certainly is excessive to the point of being obscene and if you think I'm defending those ridiculous excesses ...you'd be wrong. What I'd like to see is the complete break-down of the costs, who made what, on what and why. That is where the accountability issue you mention will play a role.
> 
> With respect to your second paragraph, I guess it's the same kind of screaming I'm hearing here from all the Harper haters. LOL The funny thing is, when it comes to government excesses and waste, I'm an equal opportunity "hater" and not a partisan "hater".


That's cool. So am I. 

But, what's the point of campaigning on accountability, and spending our tax dollars wisely if, 1- it doesn't happen, and 2- we cry someone else did it when caught in excessive overspending of huge proportions?

The "harper haters" are certainly screaming. They've (we?) endured the screaming of epic proportions on the liberals spending.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

All governments spend money like there's no tomorrow...they have a triple A rating with banks and an inexhaustible source of revenue in the form of your hard earned money.


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

Conservative apologists can circle their wagons all they wish. 

This is an issue that comes down to competency and good judgement. I've seen very little of either in how this matter was handled.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

groovetube said:


> well the quiet realization that their party is spending more and faster than the liberals can't be easy to swallow. So we need to come up with more and more plausible theories.
> 
> Yeah. The bureaucrats. They suddenly started goin willy nilly when the conservatives took power. Somebody... STOP THEM!!!
> 
> Damn.... bureaucrats.


The conservatives are well known for not taking the advise of the bureaucracy. Can't trust 'em, been associated for too many years with them damned Liberal don't ya know. Bastards.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

BigDL said:


> The conservatives are well known for not taking the advise of the bureaucracy. *Can't trust 'em, been associated for too many years with them damned Liberal don't ya know. Bastards.*


Yep that pretty much sums up quite nicely the attitude of Conservative Ministers and MPs toward the bureaucracy that they inherited after 13 years of Liberal government hirings and appointments. Is this really all that surprising?


----------

