Single price
Re It's inevitable that Ottawa plays a central role in carbon pricing (Feb. 15): I agree with Tracy Snoddon that Ottawa must play a central role in carbon pricing if our country is to meet its ambitious climate goals set in Paris. I disagree, however, that such leadership doesn't necessarily mean a single carbon price nationwide.
A national carbon price will be necessary to prevent businesses from uprooting to provinces with lower prices. To be effective, the national fee will need to rise annually by $10 per carbon tonne with all revenue raised returned to citizens to ensure that the price continues to rise – it will be too economically regressive otherwise. This national revenue-neutral carbon tax, which can integrate with other provincial mechanisms, is one policy that must happen if Canada is serious about its climate-change and clean-energy commitments. Cheryl McNamara, Toronto
Fiscal vise
Re Provincial fiscal squeeze needs remedial action now (Feb. 10): This excellent article describes the financial difficulties faced by Canadian provinces as "a fiscal vise," singling out the two big oil-producing provinces, Alberta and Newfoundland, as having their budgets quickly shift into large deficits because of their reliance on resource royalties. The author suggests the need to find "other sources of revenue … to pay for current government programs."
It should be noted that all provinces except Alberta have a retail sales tax, and all provinces except Newfoundland and Labrador have provincial property taxes. The answer to finding "other sources of revenue" should be obvious to the governments of the two provinces concerned. William O'Flaherty, Moncton
Jet sacrifice
Re When local politics trump policy, implications can be far-reaching (Feb. 13): Last summer, I flew several times from Halifax to Ottawa on Porter Airlines. In September, I flew by LOT Polish Airlines from Vilnius (where I'm working) to Warsaw. And this past weekend, my wife and I flew from Vilnius to Tallinn via Riga on airBaltic. Each time, the aircraft was a Bombardier Q400.
I must admit that on a number of occasions, I have mentioned to colleagues that the Q400 is not only a fuel-efficient and quiet aircraft but is also designed and built by a Canadian company.
Whether I'll be able to say the same thing in the future about Canadian aerospace innovation and entrepreneurship is another matter altogether, given Bombardier's questionable management of its C Series project and Transport Minister Marc Garneau's political decision to stop expansion of the Toronto island airport. Larry Hughes, Vilnius, Lithuania
The view of the island airport expansion is obviously very different from Ottawa, where the column was placelined. Toronto has a choice between having a people waterfront or an ever-expanding jet airport. The high-quality redevelopment, supported by three levels of government, has been the best thing to hit the quality of life in this city in decades. Public infrastructure investment has attracted billions in private-sector investment. Now, there's suggestion Torontonians sacrifice this waterfront to save Bombardier from its bad business decisions. The half-century, multibillion-dollar debacle of Montreal's Mirabel airport illustrates how good policy driven by "local politics" thwarted myopic federal planning. David Powell, Toronto
Letters to the editor should be exclusive to The Globe and Mail. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. Submit to letters@globeandmail.com.