VZCZCXRO5817
PP RUEHGA RUEHHA RUEHQU RUEHRN RUEHVC
DE RUEHOT #0050/01 0111324
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 111324Z JAN 07
FM AMEMBASSY OTTAWA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 4743
INFO RUCNCAN/ALL CANADIAN POSTS COLLECTIVE
RUEHSS/OECD POSTS COLLECTIVE
RHEHAAA/WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON DC
RHEBAAA/DEPT OF ENERGY WASHDC
RUEAEPA/EPA WASHDC

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 05 OTTAWA 000050 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR WHA, OES, EB AND INR 
 
WHITE HOUSE FOR CEQ 
 
EPA FOR OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS 
 
DOE FOR POLICY AND INTERNATIONAL 
 
PARIS ALSO FOR USOECD 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: SENV ENRG PGOV PINR CA
SUBJECT: HARPER NAMES BAIRD ENVIRONMENT MINISTER; HOPES FOR 
TORY EVIRONMENTAL RENAISSANCE 
 
REF: A. 07 OTTAWA 013 
 
     ¶B. 06 OTTAWA 3561 
     ¶C. 06 OTTAWA 3423 AND PREVIOUS 
 
Sensitive but Unclassified.  Please protect accordingly. 
 
¶1. (SBU) Summary and Comment:  The most noteworthy change in 
PM Harper's January 4 cabinet re-shuffle in preparation for a 
probable election later this year saw the oft-criticized Rona 
Ambrose depart Environment Canada for the much less sensitive 
Intergovernmental Affairs portfolio.  Her replacement is John 
Baird, most recently president of the Treasury Board.  Harper 
may have felt a change was due because of a growing 
recognition the Conservatives underestimated the importance 
of climate change to Canadian voters, the conventional wisdom 
that the Tories are weak on the environment, and Liberal 
leader (and former Liberal environment minister) Stephane 
Dion's announced intent to make climate change a key issue in 
the coming national election campaign.  Observers believe 
Baird was the choice to take charge of the environment 
portfolio because of his own success in defending government 
policy in Commons. 
 
¶2. (SBU) While the Conservative environmental program takes a 
far different approach than that Dion and the Liberals 
espoused before their fall from power a year ago, the Tories 
have pursued with some degree of ingenuity a program that has 
significant similarities with U.S. approaches.  They just 
have done a terrible job of selling it to the electorate. 
Ambrose, of course, bears responsibility for that, even 
though the PM has increasingly played the role of chief 
spokesman on the environment.  Baird's chief roles must be to 
defend Conservative environmental plans against Liberal 
attacks while promoting their "greenness" with the public. 
He has apparently impressed the PM with his abilities on the 
former, and he will have plenty of opportunity to display 
them when Dion makes the environment a key issue in the 
campaign.  Baird may be less suited to explaining the 
benefits of the Tory environmental plan to the voters, but he 
will have proved the worth of Harper's re-shuffle if he can 
blunt forthcoming Liberal charges that the Tories have 
mishandled their stewardship of the environment.  Membership 
for Canada in the Asia Pacific Partnership for Clean 
Development and Climate may help the Harper government pursue 
its climate change goals more effectively.  The USG might 
consider stronger advocacy for Canada's membership in APP. 
End Summary and Comment. 
 
¶3. (SBU) Canada's Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper 
shuffled his cabinet on January 4 (ref A), ostensibly to 
better prepare for the coming election campaign.  While a 
total of 13 Tory stalwarts was involved in the re-shuffle or 
named new junior ministers, it is clear that Harper's major 
focus was squarely on the environment, a file where the 
Tories have suffered considerable criticism since the 
introduction in October of the draft Clean Air Act, the 
supposed centerpiece of their environmental program (ref C). 
Headlining the re-shuffle was the move of former Treasury 
Board (a cabinet committee responsible for the management of 
government expenditure and human resources in the public 
service) president John Baird to Environment Canada.  Rona 
Ambrose, Harper's first environment minister, was shifted - 
QAmbrose, Harper's first environment minister, was shifted - 
though most would say demoted - to minister in charge of 
intergovernmental affairs and given concurrent 
responsibilities for managing "Western economic 
diversification."   Ambrose's ouster had been widely and 
wildly rumored for weeks, and morning-after press reporting 
headlined Harper's "green revolution," all but ignoring the 
wider re-shuffle. 
 
Who is Riding to the Rescue on the Environment File? 
--------------------------------------------- ------- 
¶4. (SBU) Within an hour of the swearing in ceremony, 
Environment Canada staffers were sending around Baird's bio 
(so hasty were they that the bio did not even include the new 
minister's election to the House of Commons in January 2006 
 
OTTAWA 00000050  002 OF 005 
 
 
or his leadership at Treasury Board), which makes clear the 
bulk of his working life has been spent in elective politics. 
 Baird's rise, as pointed out in front page stories in major 
newspapers, has been rapid, if not meteoric, taking him from 
a freshly elected member of the Ontario Provincial Parliament 
in June 1995 to federal MP in 2006 and by early 2007 to 
minister in charge of a portfolio that figures to be at the 
very center of the upcoming federal election campaign.  His 
bio lists a range of political responsibilities, from Ontario 
Minister of Community and Social Services (1999-2002) and 
Ontario Minister of Energy (2002-2003) to opposition critic 
on several files, but no apparent previous experience 
directly on the environment. 
 
¶5. (SBU) He also had the opportunity to polish his 
parliamentary management skills as deputy leader, party whip, 
and opposition leader in the Ontario Legislature.  In 
Harper's eyes, these skills, and Baird's reported strong 
friendship with the PM, may represent more important 
qualifications for the environment job than his management 
and substantive experience as a minister in the Ontario 
provincial government. 
 
Why the Change? 
--------------- 
¶6. (SBU) A range of factors certainly contributed to PM 
Harper's decision to replace Ambrose, but the constant 
drumbeat of criticism in the press and from the political 
opposition over Kyoto and the Conservatives' alleged weakness 
on the environment, along with several well-publicized 
Ambrose gaffs, must have topped the list.  The scant 
attention the Harper government paid to the environment in 
its early months - highlighted in the public eye by Rona 
Ambrose's May announcement at a UN climate change meeting in 
Bonn that Canada would not meet its Kyoto Protocol commitment 
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 6 percent from 1990 
levels - was consistent with the priorities stressed in the 
campaign, but it also reflected a clear underestimation of 
the importance paid to the environment by the population at 
large.  The Conservative's campaign platform presented a 
bare-bones environmental agenda, failing to mention Kyoto, 
and as late as April 2006, the environment received almost no 
mention in the government's Throne Speech laying out its 
broad legislative agenda.  (In just one sentence buried near 
the end and without elaboration, the Harper government 
promised, "(i)t will take measures to achieve tangible 
improvements in our environment, including reductions in 
pollution and greenhouse gas emissions."  This in contrast to 
the detail devoted in both the campaign platform and the 
Throne Speech to Harper's chief priorities of government 
accountability, a stronger posture against crime, and 
family-friendly initiatives such as lower taxes, better 
health care, and greater support for child care.) 
 
¶7. (SBU) By mid-spring, however, Rona Ambrose was already 
telling domestic and international audiences that "the Kyoto 
target is seriously flawed and that the emissions targets it 
imposes on Canada are unrealistic and unattainable."  The 
Liberals, she went on, had been misguided and acted too 
hastily in setting it.  Her announcement attracted 
considerable attention, particularly among the opposition. 
Yet it was not until the late October tabling of the Clean 
QYet it was not until the late October tabling of the Clean 
Air Act, the centerpiece of the Conservative environmental 
plan, that the uproar seemingly became impossible to ignore. 
Stung by the uproar, Harper changed tack and was claiming (by 
mid-December) the environment would be a Conservative 
priority in 2007.  At the very center of the public outcry 
were Kyoto and the long timeframes (to 2050) within which the 
Conservatives committed to achieve emissions reductions. 
(Note: The constant reference by the Liberals, the NDP and 
others back to Kyoto has taken on the character of a 
"mantra."  A thorough assessment of Canada's greenhouse gas 
emissions by the Office of the Auditor General's Environment 
Commissioner last September concluded that emissions were 
already 36 percent above the target as of 2004.  Clearly the 
Liberal record on climate change is not as good as its 
 
OTTAWA 00000050  003 OF 005 
 
 
supporters have made it out to be.  End note.) 
 
¶8. (SBU) Opposition criticism was predictable, and opinion 
polls revealed the extent of public dissatisfaction.  By late 
summer, polls were concluding the environment had leapt ahead 
of health care as the issue that most concerned Canadians, 
and more recent polls reveal an electorate not convinced that 
either party would do a good job on climate change.  Polls in 
December, for example, show between 65 and 75 percent of 
Canadians think the government is doing a poor job on climate 
change.  Whether this dissatisfaction was driven by criticism 
from politicians and some of Canada's prominent 
environmentalists, by Ambrose's failure to convince an 
already skeptical public, or by this winter's abnormally warm 
weather in much of Canada is immaterial.  At the heart of the 
matter the Conservatives were perceived as weak on the 
environment, and Ambrose proved incapable of turning around 
that perception. 
 
¶9. (SBU) Stephane Dion's December selection as federal 
Liberal Party leader also put pressure on the Prime Minister 
to revamp his environment lineup.  From the beginning of the 
Liberal leadership campaign, Dion, his party's environment 
minister going into the January 2006 national election and 
chair of the UNFCCC COP-11/MOP-1 in Montreal in November 
2005, had made the environment a key, if not the leading, 
element of his campaign platform (ref B).  And Dion's 
continuing criticism of the Conservative environmental record 
seems hardly likely to let up, given public perceptions.  In 
the run up to and during a national election campaign (which 
most observers still think is likely later this spring), it 
would be important in Harper's eyes to have a minister of the 
environment adept at parliamentary in-fighting, one of 
Baird's acknowledged strengths.  Ambrose, on the other hand, 
had the reputation for misspeaking and contradicting herself 
in parliamentary hearings and elsewhere.  Press commentary, 
in fact, has described the Baird appointment in exactly such 
terms:  his goal in the period before the election, according 
to some, is to "neutralize" the Liberals on the environment. 
 
¶10. (SBU) Finally, Harper just may have backed himself into a 
corner on the portfolio.  When rumors of a cabinet re-shuffle 
to replace Ambrose began in earnest before the Christmas 
holidays, the Prime Minister did little to deny them or to 
defend the embattled environment minister.  The more 
widespread the rumors, the more difficult it became for 
Harper to make the case the environment was a top priority. 
He had to make the move if the Conservatives were to have any 
chance of recapturing the environmental high ground from the 
Liberals.  (Even several days after the January 4 re-shuffle, 
much press and opposition commentary still doubts that Harper 
truly has "got it" when it comes to climate change and the 
environment.) 
 
What Went Wrong? 
---------------- 
¶11. (SBU) Observers (including Liberal environment critic 
John Godfrey) don't put all the blame for Ambrose's 
lackluster performance on her alone, noting that Harper had 
given her a relatively short leash and suggesting she did the 
best she could under the circumstances.  There is certainly 
some truth to this observation, at least to the extent that 
Qsome truth to this observation, at least to the extent that 
the Prime Minister was heavily involved in the public 
presentation of the environmental agenda.  He was, for 
example, front and center for the rollout of the draft Clean 
Air Act and for a new Chemicals Management Plan, another 
piece of the Tory environmental platform.  And, bureaucratic 
contacts in several ministries told Embassy in advance of the 
release of the Clean Air Act that both the strategy and the 
process were being tightly controlled by the Prime Minister's 
office. 
 
¶12. (SBU) These same contacts also told Embassy officers that 
elements of the overall environmental program would be 
released individually, beginning with the centerpiece Clean 
Air Act, which they planned to bill largely as health-related 
 
OTTAWA 00000050  004 OF 005 
 
 
because of its focus on pollutants (jointly with greenhouse 
gases), perhaps because the government did not want to 
compete with the Liberals directly and only on climate 
change.  In fact, according to press reporting in the past 
several days, the government's public strategy was in trouble 
before it ever got off the ground.  According to these 
reports, the government engaged a consulting firm to develop 
logos and slogans for a "Green Plan" (echoing the 1990 "Green 
Plan for a Healthy Environment" of former Conservative PM 
Brian Mulroney, who in 2005 was named Canada's "greenest 
prime minister" by an environmental magazine) but they were 
discarded during the summer because of poor reactions in 
focus group testing.  To complicate matters, Ambrose's 
message on the Clean Air Act's public health benefits was 
lost when it was introduced because of immediate charges by 
the Liberals and the New Democratic Party that the plan's 
longer timeframes for hard targets on greenhouse gases 
amounted to a retreat on climate change.  Her message was 
also the victim of a parliamentary and media uproar over 
comments derogatory to another MP allegedly made by Foreign 
Minister Peter McKay. 
 
Are the Tories Weak on the Environment? 
--------------------------------------- 
¶13. (U) Conventional wisdom - as borne out by numerous polls 
- holds that the Conservatives are weak on the environment, 
but this seems largely an artifact of the Kyoto debate.  With 
Rona Ambrose in charge of the environment file, the Harper 
government in fact has doggedly pursued the (admittedly) few 
specific items on the environment laid out in its original 
campaign platform.  The five specific items in the platform 
are legislating reductions in air pollutants (Clean Air Act 
introduced in October); addressing greenhouse gas emissions 
through new technologies and in consultation with provinces 
(Clean Air Act introduced; consultations on-going); ensuring 
water quality, cleaning up contaminated sites; and requiring 
5 percent renewable content in fuels by 2010 (announced in 
December).  Moreover, dispassionate observers, including 
bureaucratic officials, some in business and industry, and 
even some environmentalists give the Clean Air Act and the 
Chemicals Management Plan more credit than does the public. 
According to its campaign platform on the environment, then, 
the Tories are making progress; there is just no mention of 
Kyoto. 
 
¶14. (SBU) But the way ahead on the environment for the 
Conservatives is uncertain.  The centerpiece of their 
program, the Clean Air Act, has been referred for revision to 
an ad hoc parliamentary drafting committee, where the Tories 
are not in the majority, and it is impossible to predict how 
much of their original act will be retained (ref C).  The 
drafting committee has been named, but it has yet to meet, 
and there is no timeline for it to complete the redraft of 
the draft Act.  At the same time, two competing private 
member's bills are still on the table.  Political observers 
have speculated in the past couple of days that the 
Conservatives could be open to dealing on the environment 
with Jack Layton's NDP for support in the House (with the 
crossover to the Conservatives of a Liberal MP on January 5, 
Qcrossover to the Conservatives of a Liberal MP on January 5, 
a Conservative-NDP alliance could prevent an election). 
While Conservative cooperation with the NDP is not out of the 
question, Layton said in an interview on January 8 that he 
was not prepared to give in to the government on Kyoto. 
Theoretically his implied threat to bring down the government 
over climate change remains on the table. 
 
¶15. (SBU) The policies and degrees of freedom new environment 
minister John Baird will have are also uncertain, of course, 
and contacts at Environment Canada are still in the process 
of getting him up to speed.  They do say he is "experienced" 
from his days running Ontario provincial ministries and that 
he appointment is an indication of how seriously Harper now 
regards the environment file.  We would not be surprised to 
see some minor movement toward Liberal positions on climate 
change policy, perhaps in advancing the current generous 
timelines for absolute reductions in emissions, depending on 
 
OTTAWA 00000050  005 OF 005 
 
 
how successful Baird proves to be in "neutralizing" the 
Liberals.  On the other hand, we would be surprised to see a 
significant shift with respect to Kyoto.  An unrepentant 
Stephen Harper told a television interviewer on January 7 
that while he accepted the science, addressing climate change 
was a long-term challenge.  In 2012, Canada was going to be 
50 percent over its Kyoto commitment, the PM claimed, and he 
didn't see any easy - or quick - solution. 
 
Whither Rona 
------------ 
¶16. (SBU) Rona Ambrose will take over the less sensitive 
intergovernmental affairs portfolio, and she will have 
concurrent responsibilities for Western economic 
diversification and to preside over the Queen's Privy 
Council.  The intergovernmental affairs ministry, the more 
important of her new responsibilities, is in actuality a unit 
of the Privy Council Office, and supports the minister and 
cabinet on policy and communications related to 
federal-provincial-territorial relations, the evolution of 
the federation, and Canadian unity.  Observers consider her 
new assignment a demotion, but she is undoubtedly better 
suited for it (from previous experience as opposition critic 
on the file and from similar responsibilities for the Alberta 
provincial government). 
 
Moving Forward on the Environment 
--------------------------------- 
¶17. (SBU) After the re-shuffle PM Harper gave Ambrose an 
endorsement tempered by acknowledgement the Tories had 
misjudged the public mood on the environment when he said, 
"...a lot more was done by Minister Ambrose in one year than 
by the previous government in 12.  But we recognize, 
particularly when it comes to clean air and climate change, 
that Canadians expect a lot more."  The several initiatives 
begun under Ambrose's reign at Environment Canada, especially 
the Clean Air Act, were important beginnings and do have 
considerable potential to improve many facets of the 
environment in Canada, but the degree to which that potential 
can be realized must depend on the skill of John Baird on the 
floor of Commons and in the court of public opinion, where 
his chief opponent is likely none other than Liberal leader 
Stephane Dion.  For his part, Baird is not tipping his hand 
on possible differences on policy, strategy or tactics, 
saying only that he is enthusiastic about his new 
responsibilities and that his first order of business will be 
getting "briefed up" by his staff and other Canadian 
environmental stakeholders. 
 
¶18. (SBU) The approaches towards the environment taken by 
Stephen Harper and Rona Ambrose are much closer to ours than 
those of Paul Martin's Liberal government, and the USG has 
worked more closely with Canada on climate change and other 
environmental issues during Ambrose's tenure at Environment 
Canada.  Canadian officials have expressed their strong 
interest in joining the Asia Pacific Partnership for Clean 
Development, and full Canadian participation would reinforce 
approaches the Harper government has taken that are in line 
with ours, as well as provide additional impetus to the APP 
itself.  As we understand the present situation, the USG has 
advised Canada that we fully support their interest in APP. 
Perhaps stronger advocacy by the United States on behalf of 
QPerhaps stronger advocacy by the United States on behalf of 
the Canadian interest would lead to early APP membership and 
help the Harper government demonstrate the value of close 
cooperation with the U.S. and other major economies and the 
effectiveness of public-private partnerships in fostering new 
and practical technologies to address climate change, and at 
the same time help resist the pressure to return to a 
commitment to meet Kyoto targets. 
 
Visit Canada's Classified Web Site at 
http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/wha/ottawa 
 
WILKINS