ENVIRONMENT CANADA'S DISMAY OVER ONTARIO'S

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