One respondent noted that due to the absence of any critical analysis, it was not possible to
conclude from the report that the Agreement has been successful. It was suggested that the
report would greatly benefit from the following additions (24):
A gap analysis;
A conclusion that critically assesses progress as to “how we are doing”;
A discussion of policy options; and
Next steps.
Others felt the report would also benefit from perspective on how the issues being addressed fit in
the larger agenda on air issues. (4, 16, 24) Increased smog days and the likelihood of increased
urban air pollution episodes as a result of climate change were cited as examples. (16) The Acidify-
ing Emissions Task Force Report of 1997 and a discussion of how these pieces are working together
and an understanding of the Agreement against the emerging climate change agenda related to
Canada’s ratification of the Kyoto Protocol are areas needing attention. It was suggested that the
co-benefits associated with moves to shift power generation fuel use from coal to gas, for example
may have significant implications for the implementation of the Agreement, and thus also for air
quality. Further, the different positions between Canada and the United States towards the Kyoto
Protocol was seen as underscoring the need for critical analysis of our respective greenhouse gas
commitments and the implications for other air issues. Indeed, the U.S. administration’s roll back of
the New Source Review was of particular concern, and concern was expressed about the implica-
tions for transboundary air pollution, especially for border communities in southern Ontario. (24)
Many believed the agreement has been successful in providing a mechanism for addressing
transboundary air pollution problems, resulting in successes to reduce the flow of some pollut-
ants. The signature achievement of the agreement in the area of SO  emissions reductions, was
seen as a partial and not complete victory. (17, 27) The required reductions have been achieved,
but we are left with an unsolved acidification problem that the public is largely unaware of.
Canada’s Environment Minister, David Anderson has made frequent mention of this reality, as
have officials from the State of New York. (17) These comments were reinforced by another
respondent who was encouraged by the various initiatives and reduction of some pollutants, but
suggested that “a great deal” of work remains to be done to protect the health and quality of life
of millions of citizens of both countries and to protect and restore the environment. Any progress
made in reducing pollution levels was viewed as insufficient to ensure protection of our health
and restoration of the environment. (27) The statement from the progress report that “health
science has shown that particulate matter and ozone are linked to serious health outcomes for
millions of citizens on both sides of the border” highlights the concerns of many respondents.
(16, 17, 20, 21, 23, 26, 27, 31, 32)
The conclusion of the 2002 Progress Report states “Both countries are on track to meet their
emission reduction obligations”. It was suggested that the 2002 Progress Report does not fully
support that conclusion, particularly with respect to Ontario’s compliance with the Ozone Annex
commitments. (8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 21, 24, 26, 31) The Ontario Medical Association
believes that there is a need for ongoing efforts by Canada and the United States to improve air
quality and reduce the health impacts of air pollution on citizens. As a supporting document they
submitted their report “The Illness Costs of Air Pollution in Ontario – A summary of Findings
(June 2000)”. (20, 26)