Clement critical of subsidizing countries like China and India under Paris agreement


It is one thing to come up with targets to reduce carbon emissions, but quite another to fulfill them, according to Foreign Affairs critic for the Opposition, Tony Clement.

The Parry Sound-Muskoka Member of Parliament applauded all of the countries that signed on to the Paris accord on December 12. “It’s always amazing when you can get 195 countries to agree to anything,” said Clement.

 The targets that are embodied in the COP21 agreement, the Paris agreement, are similar to the ones that we as the Harper government proposed for Canada via the 30 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030. So obviously I support that stance within Canadian government.MP and Foreign Affairs Critic Tony Clement

Now the work begins, said Clement of meeting those targets. He said the heavy lifting will come as the Federal government tries to get the provinces, civil society and businesses on side. “And whatever we do, just to put a bit of a local spin on it, it has to be done in such a way that people are not taxed out of their houses to pay for the heating costs. I want to see us meet these targets but at the same time it has to be done in such a way so that it’s not punishment for people of limited means.”

Clement said Ontario’s talk of a cap and trade approach to emissions would mean the cost would be passed on to the consumer.


I’m not saying it shouldn’t happen or couldn’t happen, but we have to watch out for certain externalities to make sure we don’t create losers that are people of limited means. I feel strongly about that in our own community but also across Canada, too.Clement

He said the triumph of the Paris agreement, as opposed to the Kyoto and Copenhagen agreements, is that it has managed to persuade developing countries to sign on and they represent a greater source of new emissions. The deal would see developed countries such as Canada help less developed countries with the transition that will be required to meet their targets as well as climate change adaptation costs.

“I don’t have a problem with some of that. The Harper government had put in about 1.5 billion dollars notionally to that, Mr. Trudeau has doubled that amount. The only concern I raise is that I find it a bit odd that within the lesser developed countries who are going to get these subsidies are countries like China and India who in my mind are not lesser developed countries. They’re quite rich countries and the reason they are emitting a lot more carbon is because they are hugely growing economies. Everybody having to meet a target is the right idea,” he concluded, but reiterated that how those targets are met are some of the issues that will have to be discussed in Parliament. He said he looks forward to those discussions.


  1. I certainly agree with Mr. Clement on his dubious view on the issue of Canada sending cash to “developing nations” to assist them in mitigating their carbon emmissions.
    I do not believe that western nations owe anything to so called
    developing nations with respect to emmissions. We have travelled through our time in our country’s history and development. Now other countries are passing through their time of development. Why should we feel any guilt or responsibility to intervene in their travells toward a western standard of living (this is what it comes down to………they want to have what we have worked for and achieved.) The notion that we in the west must aleviate the difficulty developing nations may face in achieving this imagined standard is nonsense.
    The 2.5 billion that Trudeau so offhandedly promised to dole out for this lofty purpose is hugely problematic. There are several reasons for this.
    Firstly, the money doesen’t exist. In prder to write these cheques he (we) will first have to borrow the money saddling my children and grandchildren with the task of paying ot back. That is wrong.
    Secondly, the funds will be transferred without and accountability as to where they are actually spent. I would have no confidence what so ever in the Republic of Bonswata or wherever spending the money on reducing their carbon emmissions. The more likely scenario is an increase due to the cash being used to purchase a fleet of armoured light attack vehicles and a new stretch armoured limo for the current generalissimo.
    Thirdly, any funds transferred should be in the form of non forgivable loans, not gifts or grants and the specific expenditures strictly scrutized.
    Fourthly, if Canada can come up with this kind of money it should be used to fund research the methodology of coal combustion/gassification/conversion to hydrogen, toward stationary and mobile energy. The world needs energy and always will. We have trillions of btus residing in our coal and oil resourses. We have allowed ourselves to be boxed into a corner wher we can’t profitably export this energy that the world wants. We have squandered what leverage we had and now seem at the mercy of US funded NGOs, so called charities, the missed placed objections of “first nations” , a deluded public and a synical Liberal government who have foolishly jumped on the climate change bandwagon.
    Our country, having weatherd the past world financial crisis rather well Is now, so soon, in what amounts to economic free-fall. This is due in large measure to sudden revenue shortfall due in large measure to rapidly falling energy prices and very real businesses in crisis across the country especially in Ontario.
    I have to wonder where Trudeau thinks his revenues are going to come from with oil and gas revenues falling? Where do the first nations think the cash they constantly demand will come from if they block all the pipelines?
    And where will our children work when Canadian business can’t hire because they are out of business? It is a house of cards due to colapse and I see no one in authority who seems to want todeal with it.
    As Tony suggested, China and India are not developing countries and we are fools if we are borrowing money send to them. The very notion is enough to make one bang one’s head against the wall in frustration.
    Poor Canada!

  2. Sad, laughable, pathetic delusional?
    To many Conservatives and NDP’ers just can’t understand or is it admit why they lost the last federal election.
    Conservative and NDP, junkies, unable to get clean, can’t admit ‘they’ have a problem so evident in their junkie babble about what Canada should and shouldn’t be doing post federal election.
    The Conservative, unrepentant by having been lead by a leader who lessened their party and Canada. Like fish out of water gasping for meaning only the water of political power can give them. Slowly dying on the pebble shore they themselves picked clean of any stone thought to be progressive.
    The NDP, ‘still’, being lead by a leader that was great in the season, but let’s face it folks, bombed in the playoffs. With to many partisan fans completely unable to admit that Tom didn’t skate for working class in the playoffs. Instead he and some close team mates where pushing the puck for the 1%.
    Then there is the mainstream media, or as I like to call them, ‘the prestitute’. Fear-mongering, anty-free speech, omission of alternative views, with self serving polls and political partisanship so in your face during this previous federal election. With readership declining is it any wonder Standard & Poor’s had downgraded Postmedia credit rating to that of Greece?

    Leaving us with Tony Clement. When was the Harper government ever concerned with the cost of anything being passed on to the consumer, local municipality, province, the environment, the poor, un-employed, seniors or veterans? Tony might be looking forward to those discussions on targets but who now believes the Harper government understood the issues on anything in the first place?

    Clyde Mobbley
    Your local Socialist

  3. No wonder the conservatives lost……What a grand idea, lets make an isolationist our Foreign Affairs critic. Mr Clement, why don’t you simply mail in your “no” votes and save us all the 1930’s rationalization.

    Not only climate change “deniers” but now globalization “deniers”.

    Sorry Tony, I am not quite right….The conservative foreign policy is “globalization is fine as long as it only entails us selling our trinkets and oil to other nations” (Note to Tony: The British Empire and its colonization is dead)

    And people actually buy this policy crap

  4. When it comes to government money, trust no one and always get a full payback of any loan and a receipt (for tax purposes).
    Just look at what our various governments have managed to do to our Ontario Hydro and you have to realize that these folks are not the brightest bulb in the box.
    Just a curious thought. I have a friend, a young guy starting out to be a carpenter… 3 years of college and a similar time as an apprentice before he can be turned loose to build you a deck. What training, certification and apprenticeship credentials do our political leaders have in their field???
    Nobody seemed to ask when we voted.
    Nobody seems to be asking Trump, south of the border, either.

  5. It is highly unlikely that developing countries can meet their CO2 reduction goals without the help of developed countries. There are 2 ways to help; aid (a hand out) and trade (a hand up). Aid has been overwhelmed by population growth. Globalization of trade is starting to lift some countries out of poverty.

    Trade is a much better approach from a psychological and self-respect point of view. Some countries resent hand-outs as demeaning. Trade benefits both the supplier and the customer, and gives both a stake in the outcome. But we need to put more emphasis on trade in clean energy products. The 29 developed countries (that supply 100% of the annual $135 billion in foreign aid) could make their aid more productive and traceable by using some of it to subsidize their domestic suppliers of clean energy products, so they can sell to developing countries at prices those countries can afford, rather than giving hand-outs that too often end up in Swiss bank accounts.

    Denmark and Germany are leaders in wind energy. Germany and China itself are leaders in solar energy. But we know that wind and solar cannot by themselves supply anywhere near the enormous amounts of clean and affordable energy required to get us off the endless treadmill of population growth and to ween the world from oil. France, the USA and Canada are uniquely positioned to help by increasing trade in clean and safe nuclear energy technology, especially advanced nuclear.

    In the meantime, the developing world will need more oil before it needs less. Developing countries need more energy to lift them out of poverty and thereby reduce their unsustainable birth rates. But at current production rates, half of the worlds 15 major oil-producing countries including the USA and Russia will deplete their proven oil reserves in 20 years or less. Canada is one of only 7 countries with proven oil reserves that can help to meet the world’s needs for transportation energy for another 100 years. Hybrid and electric cars will become mainstream by 2020, but they represent only 36% of oil consumption, and there are currently no viable substitutes for oil for rail freight, marine and air transport, heavy duty equipment for agriculture and construction, and feedstock for 6,000 materials and products.

    So instead of cash, Canada should use our expertise and financial resources to help developing countries in the form of subsidized trade in hydro-electric, nuclear, and petroleum energy products.

Leave a reply below. Comments without both first & last name will not be published. Your email address is required for validation but will not be publicly visible.