The Commissioner for Sustainable Development (CSD) has released a damning fourth report1 on the failure of climate governance and the management of the Green Fund, now the Electrification and Climate Change Fund (FECC). Nearly 6.7 billion dollars of public funds are at risk of being mismanaged due to the lack of efficiency and transparency of the Ministry of the Environment (MELCC) — not to mention the billions already mismanaged since the creation of the Fund in 2006.
Posted at 2:00 p.m.
That’s enough. Our elected officials must take action and demand that the Public Administration Commission summon the leaders of the MELCC to account for the irregularities raised by the CDD.
The Department must explain what solutions it intends to put in place to address the shortcomings, including the delays in implementing accountability mechanisms that were intended to ensure greater efficiency and transparency in the management of the Fund and consistency in the coordination of government actions.
Already in 2019, Prime Minister François Legault recognized that the Fund was “managed anyhow”, that “several ministries were getting it” and that there was “no optimization based on the reduction of GHGs”. The MELCC had almost two years to convince us that its reform would put us on the right track. After reading the CDD report, we understand that the Prime Minister’s comments remain valid.
Stop repeating past mistakes
In an open letter published in The Press November 15, 20192, around twenty academics warned that the reform signaled a step backwards. The Commissioner’s report confirms this concern.
One of the pillars of the reform was to abolish the Green Fund Management Council (CGFV), a body created in 2017 to oversee the management of the Fund after it was revealed that billions had been spent with little results. Instead, the Ministry of the Environment took over the reins of governance of the Fund and the coordination of government actions in the fight against climate change.
To stay the course on the reform, he asked the Auditor General of Quebec to produce an annual report on the management of the Fund.
So, as soon as it was done, the minister brushed aside the findings and recommendations, on the pretext that “it’s a photo that dates from 1er April 2021… which is no longer accurate today”.
The government defends its record on the basis that its Plan for a Green Economy 2030 (PEV) and the Office of Electrification and Climate Change (BECC), which replaces the CGFV, did not start until 1er April 2021. But several data analyzed by the CDD date from February 2022. Notwithstanding the label and the ruling party, the reality is that the Fund has existed since 2006 and is still poorly managed by the MELCC. The current government is perpetuating the inefficiencies of the past, with the difference that there will now be a lot more money in the Fund.
The commissioner’s work shows that the EPI incorporates several actions from the former Action Plan on Climate Change (PACC), that there is no more transparency in accountability and that the Department does not exercise there is still no integrated governance to allow the coordination of actions at government level. They also point out that the MELCC has integrated PACC actions into the EPI without having previously assessed their performance or made adjustments.
Invest blindly
In other words, it’s like accepting that a financial advisor invests our money in an investment fund without worrying about monitoring returns. In the case of the FECC, the target return is the maximum emission reduction per dollar invested.
By abolishing the CGFV, the government has deprived itself of its main body mandated to examine, with a certain independence, the dysfunction of the Fund, and to harmonize the accountability process.
By becoming responsible for the Fund again, the Minister of the Environment has put himself in the position of being both judge and party of a Fund of which his department is itself the beneficiary. There is therefore a conflict of interest.
In business, financial audits of companies owned by shareholders are carried out by independent firms. In the case of the FECC, the Quebec company is the shareholder. Why wouldn’t we be entitled to the same rigor and the same transparency?
Stupidity consists in doing the same thing over and over again hoping for a different result. CDD’s findings are clear: the approach to FECC management and climate governance is still flawed. This approach therefore needs to be reviewed.
As with the fight against the pandemic, the approach to climate governance must be depoliticized and rely on transparent and independent accountability mechanisms to respond effectively to the urgency of the crisis. Our government can and must do better. An appearance by the leaders of the MELCC before the Committee on Public Administration would represent a first step in discussing solutions and correcting the situation.
* Co-signer: Annie Chaloux, associate professor at the University of Sherbrooke