Given that most of the real work that will have real results happens at lower levels in ongoing meetings over the time between summits, I don't think the outcome is going to be in any way proportional to the expenditure. All the leaders do, in the end, is endorse a pre-negotiated communique. With all the talk about financial responsibility that's going on, perhaps controlling the cost of these international summits would be a good starting point.

Mendalla

The world is supposedly broke and insane amounts of money are spent on these summits.  This country is supposedly broke and we are spending insane amounts of money on this summit.  My province is supposedly broke and we are spending money building 16 roundabouts that no one wants or needs.  My city is supposedly broke and we are spending money on trees, benches and paths that will be ripped up this winter for the Canada games and replaced.  With all these good examples of fiscal responsibility is it any wonder that personal debt is so high?

 I gather there's aspects of "fake" about the security too...

The money is being spent on goods and services made or delivered here in Canada, thus stimulating sectors of the economy.  Further, subsequent business through trade with these countries may result in billions of dollars in business for Canadian businesses creating possibly jobs and further demands for goods and services.  It's not money down a hole, it's an investment.  High risk = High expected rate of return.

(Net profit/money invested) X 100 = Return on Investment

Trade with those countries would likely taske place, summit or not.  Not to mention loss of buisness to fishing guides and such in Muskoka, and imconvenience to Toronto traffic and business... which loss would lower any mythical 'ROI'... Except for the security guard industry, who really is benefitting?