It was Edward Rawls that spoke of fairness as the finest summation of justice, to distribute accordingly unto those that live with greater conviction than any other. These Mayors that stand before you today need not explain just how much their respective cities have earned their share of Canada's resources. "I create 50% of the GDP of Quebec" said Tremblay with the other Mayors involved being capable of boasting similar numbers regarding the revenue they produce compared to the rest of their respective provinces (Winnipeg 65%, Halifax 47%, Toronto 46%.) To ignore their pleas is to forgo justice, and regardless of what sacrifices our country needs to make, it is evident that all surplus funding belongs in the hands of the innovators - people that not only make their cities work, but go beyond their given call with such ambition that they leave an imprint on the minds of countries all over the world.
Granted, I recognize that to treat your remaining citizens as lesser beings is to commit political suicide. To do so would jeopardize our understanding of democracy and throw any remaining notion of justice out the window. To which I would respond with an argument of similar reason and interest as I have described thus far. Edward Rawls' ideas regarding fairness divide into two principles with those being defined as follows: "First: each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others. Second: social and economic inequalities are to be arranged ... to everyone's advantage, and ... open to all..." This idea plays upon the idea of optimism and incentive. Anyone can become anything, with such progress being defined by appropriate merit - the same idea applies in a larger context. Toronto has grown to a level where it's existence is significant to the overall balance and survival of Canada, it has therefore earned it's right to the additional funding. Addressing the idea of this change in funding as a calling to those that are not applying themselves to their full potential then I would foresee a universal acceptance that funding belongs to those who are ready to create something marvelous.
The question therefore is, from where will we find this funding. To add additional tax to gas even in the smallest sense serves to contradict the intentions of our argument given that it reduces the incentive to commute. However, it is a sufficient method of gaining revenue and it could be argued that the money would be used for the driver's best