Ok, so here's the final decision (saying it like I mean it this time )
Let me start off by saying thank you to everyone who contributed here, I have always found this forum to contain a wealth of useful information and experience, and even though it may sound like I’m not taking the majority of your advice, believe me in that I took everything that was said here under close consideration.
First off I have decided to forgo the 28-138 IS. My reasoning behind this is that I quickly found that this lens needs to be used either outdoors during the day or with a flash (for most things). In these situations, my G9 performed very close to sometimes better than my 40D and 28-135 (the G9 really is a great camera). I bought the G9 specifically for this type of shooting and find it's convenience over the larger setup to far overshadow it's limitations in these situations.
I have decided to pass of the 17-55 IS because looking around on here and on pBase reminded me of why I sold my copy of this lens in the first place. It flares something horrible when bright lights are in the frame. As this lens's primary strengths are low light shooting, there are often light sources in the frame causing ghosting and flare. In my preference (mind you these are my subjective feelings) flare is the worst offence of a lens scoring negative points for me above even corner softness, light fall off, and CA (the latter coming in a very close second for me). With the primary strength of this lens showing a glaring flaw 50% of the time (again my personal shooting style and feelings here) the justification for investing in it simply fell away.
In a stark contrast to my initial impression I am falling in love with the 28/1.8 and am going to keep it. I have found that where image quality is concerned, this lens is falls somewhere between my 50 f/1.4 and my 100 f/2 (which is a very narrow margin), with a build quality easily as good as the 100 f/2. All three of these lenses perform amazingly wide open and are all near perfect at f/2.8 with a ever so slight edge going to the 100 f/2. The added bonus of once again having a "normal" fast prime makes this lens a definite keeper. I don't know what I was thinking at first.
The now obvious hole in my setup is at the wide end. The decision to keep the 10-22 now seems obvious. This lens is very good at what it does and was one of the most painful sales for me when I graduated from the 20D to the 5D. Now that the purity of FF has finally lost most of its glamour with me (I know that I'm pretty much alone with this thought) and the financial need to trim down my equipment collection forced me to sell the 5D while it still retained much of its value, I am very happy to be able to reacquire this lens in my collection.
This leaves me with a very useful and good quality "every day" camera in the G9, as well as an extremely functional and very high quality "specialty" setup with the 40D, 28/1.8, 50/1.4, 100/2, and 10-22. The other obvious benefit of this setup is the relative low cost. The total here is around $3500 including the G9. To go one step up in quality with each component would be to acquire a 5D with a 35L, 85L, 135L and 17-40L (or 16-35L), a setup that would cost over $6500 (more so if you opted for the 16-35). At a price increase of around 100% for a return of (in my opinion) about a 10% overall increase in picture quality and functionality, I simply cannot justify the added expense as I am certainly not a professional or person with financial independence.
I’m sure that at some point my opinions will change again (as they always do) but for now I’m happy with this setup. I have always been a really big fan of primes as I feel that the pictures I take with them are always better than those I take with zooms. For those times when I want the convenience of a zoom I have the G9 which fills the convenience ticket with its size and weight as well.