Martin questions G20 attendance -

Martin questions G20 attendance

Former PM says talks included “absurd” number of officials


Former prime minister Paul Martin said yesterday that the number of officials at Toronto’s G20 summit last summer was “absolutely absurd.” Martin was responding to Gordon Smith, a former Canadian ambassador, who said the large number of officials reduces the chances of having a productive set of meetings. An estimated 10,000 G20 delegates, officials, and media attended last June’s summit in Toronto. “I don’t know what all those people do,” Martin told the National Post.

National Post

Filed under:

Martin questions G20 attendance

  1. First of all who cares what Paul Martin has to say. He will go down in history as one of our worse PMs.

    He takes credit for forming the G20. What does he think when you expand a group from 8 to 20 countries?

    I do agree that probably the entourages were far to big but why Martin feels compelled to comment on it is beyond me let alone the need to report his feelings.

    • Who cares what Martin has to say?

      Well let me put it this way: It was Paul Martin the other nations invited to speak with them about economic renewal in their countries, NOT Flaherty.

      Gee, I wonder why? LOL

      • Once again….he has no credibility with Canadians. Yes he eliminated the deficit. However, how tough was it when he slashed and burned virtually every social program the country had. Healthcare has still not recovered from his slash and burn policies. Lets not forget he stole $50 billion from the EI fund to help balance the deficit. Of course lets not forget that Canadians were the highest taxed people among the G8. So don't tell me about Paul Martin and his Liberals. Tax and spend. You bet.
        However, how effective was he really when his own government established a program to enable the party to steal from ordinary taxpayers? He was an extremely weak PM and as I say that will be his legacy.
        Martin can go around the world and talk all he wants. He has no power. He is an ordinary citizen and his speeches carry little weight.

        • Ah mom, not old canard for dinner AGAIN! LOL

          1) Measuring the raw taxation percentages is a shell game. The only relevent question is how wealthy are the average citizens based on after tax income and benefits. For example, Germans are highly taxed but have more take-home pay, work less and are far more productive.

          2) Only a partisan could complain that we had to cut spending to balance the budget! LOL (duh)

          3) The proof of the pudding is in the eating, we had a balanced budget and paid off debt. Well, until Flaherty anyways.

          4) Enough experts from around the world agree that Paul Martin is a knowledgeable economist that his phone doesn't stop ringing with calls from foreign finance ministers asking his advice. Oh but I'm sure his popularity with Canadians is just so much more a meaningful indicator of his abilities eh? LOL

          You partisans crack me up.

  2. G20 and Harper's fake lake was a complete farce. It was just a staged photo op for Stevie. Trying to appear statesman like. Making Harper look like a statesman is like trying to Mike Meyers look like James Bond. The liberals have really screwed up with their choice of leader. Martin or Chretien if they were back would be sitting in office with a majority. Harper is changing Canada in ways that we will not be able to repair similar to the blunders his mentor and hero Bush did to the U.S.

    • Oh get off the pot. Martin was a terrible PM. They didn't call him Mr. Dithers for no reason at all. Yes he covered the deficit but how hard was that when he slashed and burned anything he could get his hands on while keeping personal taxes high.
      Chretien was done in by Martin and his own party. He had his day in the sun. What great thing did Chretien do while spending 13 years in office with a divided opposition and majority governments?
      Instead of making unsubstantiated comments like Harper is changing Canada in ways etc. you should provide facts rather than making generalized statements. I don't know about you but life is pretty good, I have more money in my pocket than I did when the Libs were in power, I am happy to see criminals spend time in jail and I am happy the PM has managed the country through the economic crisis.
      Get over George Bush. He is long gone from the scene. The Obama is imploding as we speak. Find a different talking point.

      • Hmmm… you seem easy to please.

        So whatcha sayin' is that just by giving you a few cents off your reader's digest subscription and double double while making calming noises about the big bad criminals, you're happy to lay down any expectations that the government will be competent?

        Cause that's what I'm hearing! LOL

  3. The fact that Martin keeps chiming in of late worries me. Is he planning to run aghain? Or does he just like seeing his name in print? Or is he trying to upstage Iggie?

    • Or does he just care about his country and wants to see it do well?

      Personally I think Martin was one of the few truly thoughtful PMs we ever had.

      To me the title of "Mr.Dithers" was a compliment, especially given the nonsense since he left.

      It would be nice today to have a PM whose worst trait seems to be that he weighs facts and options carefully.

      Oh the horror! LOL

      • Way over the top. You obviously saw a different man trying desperately to lead the country. He was a failure as PM. His reputation, deserved or not, was as Finance Minister. However, when he got the top job he didn't know what to do with it.

        • Surely you have something more substantive to offer than this?

          Yes he is!
          No he isn't.
          Yes, he is!
          No… he isn't.
          Oh yes he is…
          Oh no he isn't…

          etc etc etc

          Again, if the biggest criticism you can offer is that he wasn't willing to play games with facts and actually considered the options before taking a position, well then that explains why you support a party of no substance that lives off the prevails of message massage and eschews the facts that might prove them wrong.

          Oh well. LOL

    • It probably should worry you. It could be devastating for Harper after the mess he's brought Canada to since Martin was PM. About comments he was a bad PM – how would anyone know, he called an election not long after taking over. He lost that election, but Harper's pupulatrity has dropped quite a bit since.

  4. Paul who?

    • Are you a goldfish?

  5. Election must be coming soon to theater near us!

  6. Only the most blind partisans can say anything against Martin. He is very respected nationally and internationally. I've never heard the words Flaherty and respect in the same sentence.

    At least Martin's budgets were not panned and proven as fiction like Flaherty's are. He was OPEN with budgets, meaning he didn't have to hide "the plan" behind Cabinet priviledge".

    You cannot compare these two. Fiscal Conservatives are a myth.

    So yah, I tend to listen to what Martin says. He's almost always right.

  7. What do all these people do—'service' as opposed to 'serve' the taaxpayers. That is all government does anymore.

  8. If you are as frustrated as I am about the abuse of powers of police during the G20 (especially the fact that Toronto Chief of Police Bill Blair is still in power after admittedly lying to citizens about their civil rights resulting in individuals being unlawfully searched and detained), then follow this link for contact information for the City of Toronto (mayor and council) and a sample letter asking for the dismissal of Police Chief Blair: