But if it was money that would have gone to that city anyway, and they decide this is a priority – why not let them do what they want with it? It may be a mistake, and perhaps the motorists of Quebec City will suffer from having more potholes than they would otherwise have to put up with – but if that is their choice how does it affect me? Granted there should probably be some defined terms of how tax money should be spent – but public works projects are public works projects. And for the last few thousand years, public arenas have been a recognizable part of civic infrastructure. I don't see this proposal as being much of a stretch.

To Manley's credit, it didn't take too much outraged howling for him to scamper down that flagpole but quick…

I expect much of the opposition to this notion comes from areas of the country that would be jealous of Quebec City getting an NHL team. Particularly cities like Toronto.

The dig against the Leafs is good, but wouldn't the jealousy come less from the addition of a new NHL team and more from the fact that Toronto's NHL arena was built with private money?

Then, ditto for the good burghers of Regina, Winnipeg, Hamilton, Ottawa and perhaps Halifax, (the last two being erstwhile CFL supplicants). IMO, the federal government should not be using its vast tax collecting and distribution powers to finance what are essentially private corporate playpens. Especially when the feds set the rules for such disbursements and use this power to engage in porkbarreling. In essence, the federal government is trying to buy the locals with their own money.

If the funds are truly generated locally, then the feds should have NO say in how the local government chooses to dispose of them.

Local arenas and stadia are essentially local civic cum corporate initiatives (not what I would regard as essential infrastructure installations) and, as such, should be financed by municipal debentures.

"Why not let the people of Quebec City make that decision? "

Indeed. Let them decide on a municipal tax hike. Masters in their own house, and all that.

Or let them allocate other tax revenue – such as the gasoline tax – to such a project. If it only re-allocates money which they were already going to receive, and they'd like to spend it on a stadium rather than a new bridge – why not let them?

Because, as LK points out, someone is still going to have to pay for the "new bridge" so it's just a shell game.

We need to stop sitting here demanding someone else pay for things we want, not need, and start having the wherewithal to sit down and pay for it ourselves if it's something we truly believe we want in our community. All this: "we need money from X/Y/Z" posturing does is see to it that nothing gets done but bluster by all parties involved and feed the "we need to get some 'event' so they'll pay for it!!!" machine that drives urban redevelopment planning in municipal politics here. US Cities levy "temporary" taxes to pay for this stuff all the time but, as it stands, Canadian ones would rather cry poor and beg upwards than risk driving their own agenda independent of a safety net or being run out on a rail for merely suggesting to the public that they pay for it themselves and it get done.

I believe Ontario has resolved this somewhat for, at least, Toronto allowing them freedom to toll roads, add taxes to existing taxes (hence, the "hated" car tax tacked onto license plate renewal fees that was just eliminated), and similar. I don't see why other provinces can't do the same without federal interference.