Tear gas on the streets, riot police facing off against demonstrators, burning cop cars, vandals smashing storefronts to send a message to "big business" - do we need any of it?
No.
If the price of Canada taking its rightful place on the "world stage" is $1 billion plus for security, who knows how many more millions in other expenses, and untold other millions in lost business and damages, then maybe we should rethink the whole idea.
Rethinking the location of G20 summits would be a good start.
Seeing it all happen in a city many of us are familiar with brought home just how shocking, ridiculous, devastating, and damaging the summit process is, especially when it's held in the centre of a major city.
It's one thing to stage a march to try to get a message across to world leaders - it's completely pointless, world leaders pay no attention, but there's no real harm in it. But it's quite another to mindlessly smash store windows, damage people's livelihood, and terrify innocent bystanders in the name of some vague ideology that glorifies mindless violence.
Cynical commentators said if holding the summit was going to be such a positive boost for the city as politicians said, then Prime Minister Stephen Harper would have held it in Calgary, his home riding.
We can see now why he didn't. With most of Toronto's central core fenced off, major retail areas and tourist sites closed or "in lockdown" thanks to protests, cultural events cancelled, public transit completely disrupted, and news coverage focusing on police, demonstrators, and vandalism, "positive" is not the word that comes to mind.
And the worst part is, it's all mostly worthless.
Little is done at either the G8 or G20 that couldn't be accomplished by meetings between government ministers or secondary officials, or small get-togethers of heads of state.
The larger accomplishments are often vague agreements to attempt actions in the future. On Sunday morning, for example, it was being touted that Harper, as host, had got a commitment from most of the G20 leaders to promise to cut their deficits in half within three years - with the understanding that countries can go about it in different ways and have different challenges to overcome.  As a real, concrete action, it's hardly inspiring.
What the two summits have done, though, is provide lots of film clips and photographs of Harper chatting comfortably with U.S. President Barack Obama and other world leaders, lots of video of Harper looking determined and prime ministerial in front of summit backdrops, and of course, the "big photos" of Harper and fellow leaders posed on a well-groomed lawn.
All of that will be put to good use in campaign ads and promotional literature when the next federal election rolls around.
World leaders can meet to discuss issues at any time - even in groups. If they must stage a massive pageant for their respective news services, let's make sure it's done where it can't devastate a major city's business district - and where we don't have to pay $1 billion for security.
Some political commentators have suggested an aircraft carrier at sea. Protected by a full carrier battle group, it would certainly be secure. Transportation on and off would be right at hand, and state-of-the-art communication systems would ensure all summit communiques could be relayed efficiently to the outside world.
For a land-based version, we suggest CFB Petawawa. It has excellent accommodations in historic military barracks, is already well-secured, and includes many square miles of gunnery range and training area for protestors to roam on. Anarchists could vandalize the urban warfare training course to their hearts content - as well as providing valuable real-time training for soldiers hunting them down. In the more austere setting of military briefing rooms, world leaders might be less concerned with the dinner menu, and more interested in solving the world's problems.