Although I agree with the general premise of the article and the need for key world leaders to talk and interact and feel the pressure from other points of view and parts of the world, I disagree with several embedded arguments or inferences of the article.  First of all what's wrong with slow growth?  Eliminating countries because of slow growth economies while ignoring their absolute economy size and importance makes no sense whatever.  I argue that slow growth is good - it's what we need to maintain stability and avoid the boom/bust cycles of capitalist economic history.   And Russia's economy is in decline and a mess - yet it's very important that they be included in this G20 group to avoid complete isolation and self-loathing in the company of other nations.  Eliminate them for slow growth???  And the inference about removing Canada in favour of another less deserving country is nonsense - Canada definitely belongs in the top twenty in so many ways - even top 2 to 10 - size, etc.