This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

021835Z Aug 05

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 OTTAWA 002320 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
STATE FOR OES/E (MCMURRAY) 
STATE ALSO FOR WHA/CAN, OES/ETC AND EB/ESC/ISC 
EPA FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS (CHRISTICH) AND OAR/OAP 
(STEVENS) 
DOE FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS (DEUTSCH, PUMPHREY) 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: SENV ENRG PGOV CA
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENT CANADA'S DISMAY OVER ONTARIO'S 
TRANSBOUNDARY AIR POLLUTION STUDY 
 
REF: A. TORONTO 1901 
 
     ¶B. TORONTO 1697 
     ¶C. TORONTO 1580 
     ¶D. 04 OTTAWA 3305 
 
¶1.  (U)  Sensitive but unclassified.  Not for distribution 
outside USG channels. 
 
¶2.  (SBU)  Summary:  ESTOFFs met July 27 with officials from 
Environment Canada regarding Ontario's Transboundary Air 
Pollution Report (refs B and C), which attempted to estimate 
costs to the province of air pollution from U.S. sources. 
The Environment Canada officials believe that the report was 
produced primarily for political reasons, and are concerned 
about the negative impact the report could have on the work 
of the U.S.-Canada Air Quality Committee.  End summary. 
 
¶3.  (SBU)  According to Environment Canada (EC) officials 
involved in implementing transboundary air quality programs, 
their department was not aware of the Ontario report until 
its release.  Further, no Ontario officials have briefed EC 
personnel on the report, nor have they offered to do so.  The 
EC officials added that they have not had a chance to 
carefully read the report, or analyze its findings that air 
pollution causes C$9.6 billion in health and environmental 
damages in Ontario each year (one Canadian dollar equals 
about 80 cents U.S.).  According to the report, 55 percent of 
the health and environmental damages are attributable to U.S. 
air pollution sources. 
 
¶4.  (SBU)  The EC officials voiced their personal views that 
the report is intended to serve as political cover for the 
provincial government as it prepares to renege on its vow to 
close Ontario's remaining coal-fired power plants (ref A). 
The Ontario government, they opined, will use the report to 
argue that closing Ontario coal plants now will simply mean 
importing coal-generated electricity from the United States, 
to the further harm of Ontario residents.  Whatever Ontario's 
ultimate strategy, the representatives said, provincial 
officials are not sharing it with Environment Canada. 
 
¶5.  (SBU)  At the Shared Air Summit in Toronto, which took 
place shortly after the report's release (ref B), Premier 
Dalton McGuinty delivered a keynote speech which called for 
increased U.S.-Canada cooperation on air pollution.  He made 
no mention of the bilateral Air Quality Committee (AQC), 
which has met annually since the 1991 U.S.-Canada Air Quality 
Agreement.  (Note: Ontario provincial representatives 
attended and fully participated in the last AQC meeting in 
Ottawa in December 2004 (ref D)).  Thanks in large part to 
bilateral efforts coordinated within the AQC, both the United 
States and Canada have achieved reductions of up to 40 
percent of 1990 emissions levels of nitrous oxides and sulfur 
dioxide.  Current AQC activities include joint action to 
reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds, the 
precursors to ground-level ozone, and several joint projects 
to address common airshed issues, including a study in the 
Detroit-Windsor area in which the Ontario Ministry of 
Environment has been a full participant. 
 
¶6.  (SBU)  In response to ESTOFFs' questions about the 
suitability of the AQC as a forum to further discuss the 
Ontario report, the EC officials said they would need 
additional time to study the report before making a 
recommendation.  They noted that the AQC owes much of its 
success to its non-politicized nature.  Offering the AQC as a 
forum to discuss a deeply political document could undercut 
the AQC's more important work.  Further, they said, placing 
the report on the AQC's formal agenda could give it "more 
attention than it deserves."  One option could be a technical 
meeting on the margins of the AQC to discuss the report's 
findings, which would also allow questions to Ontario 
officials on the report's methodology, findings, and purpose. 
 
¶7.  (SBU)  The EC officials noted that the Ontario government 
has retained a Washington D.C. attorney who has worked with 
Canadian entities previously and is familiar with the Clean 
Air Act.  They speculated that the province might initiate 
its own action against U.S. air pollution sources, or join an 
existing suit filed against polluters by several U.S. states. 
 For the province to undertake such legal action while the 
work of the AQC continues, they said, would be 
counter-productive. 
 
¶8.  (SBU)  Comment and action request:  Whatever the 
province's true motives for producing the study, the notion 
that it will provide cover to keep the coal plants open is 
certainly plausible.  Nevertheless, we were surprised by the 
complete lack of communication between the Ontario and both 
federal governments, especially when prior cooperation at the 
technical level had been exemplary.  As we wait for the 
provincial government to decide whether to pursue litigation 
against U.S. companies, we would appreciate any USG analysis 
of the findings of the report, which can be found at 
www.sharedair.ca. 
 
Visit Canada's Classified Web Site at 
http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/wha/ottawa 
 
WILKINS