Harper’s likely master plan for hosting both the G8 and G20 summits was crude, cunning, but likely effective, given the lethargy of the Canadian electorate.  I imagine him smirking, “Hmm... under the pretext of promoting Canadian tourism and nationalism, I can use federal funds to promote myself on the international stage as a big-time player, which will show the World how clever I am, and simultaneously boost me in the Canadian polls... maybe to a majority government!  Canadians will see me as important, decisive and ‘president-like’ like my pal George W., especially since I can control the summit agenda as Host.  As a bonus, under the cover of Summit Spending, I can slip mega pork- barrel funds to all my guys, including dear Tony Clement and his Muskoka riding, which will result in even more Ontario votes the next election.  A no-brainer win-win-win situation!!  No one will notice! Who says Accountants aren’t sexy!?   I can count votes!!”
Perhaps, Harper’s (minority government) egoism and arrogance may have finally pushed the people too far, triggering widespread indignation over the ballooning $1-2 billion summit costs, which include the tasteless and pointless $1.9 million ‘fake lake’ in the Toronto media centre.  I wish I was given the opportunity to tender for the fake lake!! Here are a few points to ponder:

• Harper, a righteous opponent of “big government spending”, has historically been consistently reckless with the Public Purse when it suits his purposes. In 2006, he inherited a $13 billion budget surplus from the despised/ disgraced Liberals and turned it into a deficit even before the current recession.  Way to go for a social and fiscal conservative!!The deficit for this year is currently estimated at a whopping $49 billion!  In spite of this unprecedented Canadian deficit and the continuing global recession, Harper has authorized an obscene $1-2 billion expenditure on a 3-day summit.  In comparison, the 2009 G20 summits in London and Pittsburgh cost a relative paltry $30 million and $18 million respectively. This represents terrible judgement and/ or massive incompetence!  Either way, there is no excuse! Think of Harper's selective funding cuts; think of the alternative use of $2 billion - healthcare, education, infrastructure etc.
• Harper having mortgaged Canada’s  future to host this global party, what can Canadians expect in return? Canada’s stature in the world rising?  More tourists coming to Canada?  Probably neither.
• Even as Harper has thrown (your and my) money at these summits in order to globally impress, he has ideologically distanced himself from most of the participants.  What are you thinking, Stevo?...probably the same as George W....that North American opinion somehow represents global opinion? Harper’s original agenda for the summits was probably three-fold: 1) Hold Canada’s banking system up as an example to the world; 2) Push for rich nations to help women in poor countries dying in pregnancy and childbirth... which can be held up as an example of his soft, even “Liberal” side;  3) Avoid talks of Global Warming lest it impacts the beloved (and vote-rich) Alberta Oil Sands.
• Harper probably banked on the world economy being in better shape when he offered to host the G8 and G20 and then he could say that Canada’s bank regulations saved us (relatively) and that the world should follow us.  However, the World wants to fix the present recession/ depression rather than worrying about the future and they want to punish the banks with a “bank tax” because of their reckless behaviour.  Harper is in a small minority opposing the “bank tax”.
• Harper has also isolated himself (following the dictates of his Hero, George W) by stipulating that Canada would withhold aid funds from any groups that support abortion as part of family planning (as well as groups promoting Feminism, the Environment, and supposedly anti-Israel sentiments etc). His closest allies, the UK and USA, have opposed him.  Hilary Clinton bluntly rebuffed Harper, the G8  Host:  “You cannot have maternal health without reproductive health...(which) includes contraception, family planning and the access to legal, safe abortions”.
• Paul Nesbitt-Larking of the University of Western Ontario comments, “When it comes to ideological positioning, Mr. Harper is off-base with the rest of the world”.   A recent report by a wide spectrum of Canadian entrepreneurs, philanthropists, environmentalists and journalists states, “We need to be better friends with our best friend. And we need to make more friends in a word in which power, wealth and knowledge are accessible to all”.
• In terms of the Environment and Global Warming, Harper promotes the Alberta Oil Sands because it is his political base .. money coming into Canada, specifically Alberta.  What happens when the oil runs out?  Who pays for the environmental damage, which presently includes  vast, toxic ‘tailing lakes’, with a potential to rival the present Gulf of Mexico oil spill?  If Harper and the Tories under-write any potential damage, that would be great!  Any takers? If not, why not?

A reminder of Harper’s control fetish (of which I have repeatedly written) - The June 7th edition of The Toronto Star, using Canadian Press material, has revealed that the Harper minority government routinely uses “MEPs” (Message Event Proposals) to control and direct all bureaucratic activity, meshing it with political activity, controlled by the (minority) Tories.  In short, any spending initiative is given a Harper slant... even though he opposes “public spending”.  He is using Public Servants and funds to advance his own political agenda!  Any time a road is built or money goes to  a local, community centre, you are reminded that is because of  Harper’s Tories (who are opposed to Public Spending).
I am amazed that Stephen Harper is still our Prime Minister with current public blessing.  Iggy and Layton may not be fantastic, but perhaps they may at least try to respect our wishes and refrain from attacking Canada's battered (by Harper)democracy. Maybe a Liberal-NDP coalition?