- the buck stops with us, it certainly isn't stopping with Harper

Submitted: 6:55am, PDT, 27 May '10
Summit costs hit $1.1B, CBC News, 26 May '10
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/05/26/g8-g20-security-summit-toews.html

Wouldn't it be cheaper to retire Stephen Harper and his cronies and pay them a nice fat pension.

And, besides, if the Afghan Detainee Transfer scandal catches up with him, we may not even have to pay Harper his pension.

Jim Flaherty's explanation is that "if we want to be a player on the International scene" we have to spend the money.

I don't recall Harper, or Flaherty asking me, or anyone else in Canada, if they want to be "a player on the International scene".

Besides all Harper seems to be able to do with his extreme right wing policies and in-your-face diplomacy is embarrass Canada in front of the world and sully our reputation.

Yah, that makes us players! Hugo Chavez is a player too and has put Venezuela front and centre as well. But, then, that's what Oil Super-Powers do, isn't it.

Harper may have some influence in all the other Western democracies reversing their positions of family planning for third world countries. Now, that worth every penny of a billion dollars. Wait a minute it seems most Canadians don't accept Harper's position, it's a draw back to the Dark Ages and based on personal religious beliefs as opposed to addressing a real problem on a rational basis. Also, would just make sense to give these impoverished nations the money instead.

Just keep in mind that the only reason Harper can do this is because we let him.

There is a certain logic to Harper saying this is what Canadians want, since, presumably if we didn't, he get the boot and forthwith.

We are ultimately responsible, the buck stops with us, it certainly isn't stopping with Harper, and we and our children and our children's children, and their children, down thru the ages, will ultimately have to pay.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog