The key factor calls or considerations for countries with "national circumstances" in order to not "unduly" burden the growth of any single country.
Canada is demanding that all major emitters be included in a framework moving forward. Canada demands that this framework included mandatory targets for all nations. We can debate the merits of this approach, not to mention the fact that Canada knows full well that this is unachievable in the near term. However, where the argument becomes complete nonsense, Canada then argues for "flexibility" in terms of the targets, to acknowledge "national circumstances". The tortured logic- mandatory targets for everyone, but different targets, depending on the country. In other words, no uniformity, everyone operates in an independent universe.
John Baird's own words show the inherent hypocrisy:
"Eliminating emissions in one country but allowing them to skyrocket in another does nothing to reduce the global burden of harmful substances that contribute to climate change and pollute the air we breathe," wrote Mr. Baird
Following the Baird logic, the EU "eliminates" emissions, while a country like Canada, because of its "special" status, can continue on a different path. Arguing that no country gets a pass, then telling the world that Canada should get special consideration, because of circumstance. Canada doesn't support mandatory targets, it actually supports a patchwork of differing targets, relatively weak ones for us. A country like Norway, with similar geographic circumstance and energy exports will be expected to meet a certain threshold, but Canada will operate under different rules. What a farce.
Every country in the world can argue "national circumstance", everyone is "special". Within that lens, the Baird argument actually supports the Chinese and Indian resistence, because those nations can argue they merely supply the international appetite for goods, much like Canada does in terms of energy. The goods in question supply the west, why should the source suffer, while the consumer appears clean?
The Canadian position is so fundamentally flawed and completely disingenious, arguing out of both sides of our mouth, hoping the contradictions get lost in the noise.