If my tax dollars built it, shouldn't I get in for free?

I wonder what advice the PM received before embarking on what promises to be a foray of federal spending on sports facilities.

The original idea of luring back an elite team to Quebec City with a shiny new venue is admirable. After all, two Quebec teams in the NHL are better than one. The yawning deficit should, however, deter any politician from spending more than what's strictly necessary to keep the country afloat.

This is hardly a vote-grabbing initiative: Quebec City is one of our most reliable electoral areas in QC, and the "gratitude" vote in the province is fickle. Those who doubt my analysis need only remember how the "Quebec nation" shtick was wiped out by a tiny cut in elitist artists' subsidised holiday budgets. Harper doesn't seem to be attempting to indulge Quebec nationalists either: he'd choose a much better chance at winning big in QC at the price of disgruntling his AB base.

Probably QC hasn't anything to do with the decision. Lavishing money on activities popular with the masses is likely to endear the PM and the Party to quite a few voters. This might be the reason why, following the announcement of Quebec City's cash shower, promises of similar largesse in other parts of Canada began rolling in.

I can see this working to everyone's advantage, provided the small print is well negotiated. Throwing cash at an arena is useless. Making the subsidy into a revenue-sharing agreement could, instead, placate both interventionists and fiscal hawks. On one hand, the Government finances what Canadians like. On the other, it expects a return.

I won't get started on the grants system. I'll simply advocate that, in times of economic uncertainty, the Government prove it isn't giving someone a free ride.