Commission Gallant and the SAAQclic Scandal
The latest hearings at the Commission Gallant have been drawing attention, especially with Karl Malenfant, the architect behind the SAAQclic project, returning to testify. What’s unfolding feels like a mix of political drama, technical fiasco, and questions of integrity.
On Friday, Malenfant was confronted with evidence that directly contradicted what he had previously sworn under oath. He had earlier claimed he had never seen certain documents linked to the bidding process for SAAQ’s new digital platform. Yet, investigators revealed that those very documents had been sent by him to his personal email. When faced with this, Malenfant admitted that he had indeed read them—over 2,000 pages of material—though he said he could not remember why he had done it.
Also Read:- Busted vs McFly – A Pop-Rock Showdown That Feels Like a Reunion
- AFL Power Struggle Looms as Richard Goyder Prepares Exit
This revelation placed him in an uncomfortable position. The commissioner, Denis Gallant, reminded him of the law on perjury, stressing the gravity of swearing something under oath and then being contradicted by hard evidence. The documents in question were linked to the consulting firm Deloitte, which was in the running for the billion-dollar project but ultimately lost the bid to a partnership known as the “Alliance.” According to official rules, these documents should have been securely locked away and inaccessible at the time Malenfant reviewed them.
The contradictions don’t stop there. Text messages presented as evidence showed Malenfant joking about the massive volume of Deloitte’s proposal, telling a friend he had read “2070 pages” and calling it “a lot of stuff.” This friend, Louise Savoie, was herself a consultant tied to the SAAQ contract, a role that brought her significant financial gain.
The commission has also heard concerns about favoritism. Some testimony suggested Malenfant may have wanted Deloitte to win the contract, despite the fact that their proposal came with millions of extra hours of work compared to the competition. When asked, he downplayed cost concerns, pointing instead to the long-term technological strength of the company as his priority. But prosecutors reminded him that the SAAQ’s funds were meant to compensate accident victims, not to be treated like an unlimited pool of money.
As the inquiry digs deeper, the flaws in the SAAQclic project keep surfacing. It has already been revealed that the team of experts promised by one firm during the bidding process was never actually delivered; what the SAAQ got was a “team B.” Even before contracts were signed, deviations from the agreement had started to take place.
Malenfant’s testimony has become a central piece of this ongoing story. Each session at the commission seems to expose more inconsistencies and raise further questions about transparency, governance, and accountability in one of Quebec’s most ambitious digital projects. His next appearance is expected to continue shedding light on how a modernization plan turned into one of the province’s most notorious administrative fiascos.
Read More:
0 Comments