Montreal, QC – February 11, 2026 – As the Gallant Commission prepares to release its report on the troubled SAAQclic project, Karl Malenfant, the former Vice President of Information Technology at the Société de l’assurance automobile du Québec (SAAQ), has launched a robust defense, rejecting personal blame and alleging a coordinated effort to tarnish his reputation.
Malenfant, a key architect of the SAAQclic initiative, stated unequivocally that he has “nothing to reproach himself for” and that the project itself was not an outright “fiasco.” His preemptive strike comes just days before the official findings of the Gallant Commission are due to be published on February 16th, following a period of intense scrutiny over the SAAQclic rollout and its significant cost overruns.
Pushing Back Against Censure
Malenfant’s public stance was prompted by the receipt of a notice of censure containing 48 allegations against him. Appearing before the media in Montreal, accompanied by his lawyer Jean-François Bertrand, Malenfant presented a 112-page response to these allegations, alongside boxes of supporting documents. He emphasized that his intention was not to deflect blame onto others but to provide a clear, chronological account of the decisions made throughout the project’s six to seven-year development.
“I was not the only one accountable,” Malenfant asserted, highlighting the shared responsibility across various levels of the organization. His lawyer, Bertrand, explained that Malenfant felt compelled to present his version of events in a structured manner, something he believed was not possible during his previous testimony before the commission.
Allegations of a "Character Assassination" Strategy
Perhaps the most striking claim made by Malenfant is the existence of a deliberate strategy to discredit him. He revealed that a whistleblower informed him of an “IT firm, supported by a lobbying firm,” that allegedly orchestrated a “character assassination strategy” aimed at making him appear untrustworthy. The purported goal was to neutralize his defense by destroying his public image.
While Malenfant declined to name the firms involved or the whistleblower, he maintained that this conspiracy was designed to isolate him and prevent his perspective from being heard. The Canadian Press was unable to independently verify these claims, as the specific email exchanges were not among the documents provided.
Shared Responsibility and Collective Decisions
Malenfant stressed that accountability for SAAQclic was not his alone. He delineated three key pillars of responsibility: the project owner (the SAAQ board of directors, responsible for strategic direction and financial approval), the developer (the alliance of IT firms IBM/LGS and SAP), and the project manager (himself and his team).
“I was not alone accountable because I had around me 44 managers to help me to manage all this project,” he stated. “I was not the one who had the money. It was the board of direction of the SAAQ.”
The Launch Decision
Malenfant recounted a specific instance where he agreed to postpone the launch of SAAQclic until January 2023, acknowledging that several stakeholders were not ready. However, he pointed out that the subsequent, disastrous launch in February 2023 received a “green light” from all parties involved.
“In February, they all told us to go ahead, specifically the leading experts at IBM said to go ahead,” Malenfant detailed. “Denis Marsolais (former CEO of the SAAQ) heard this and said to go ahead. The six VPs (vice presidents) and their teams… were preparing for the rollout and were ready. Our external auditor, who was present at the meetings every day… was there. It was a collective decision. How come it’s always my fault?”
Software Choice and Commission's Presentation
He also questioned his blame for the choice of SAP software, noting that this decision was made three years prior to his hiring. Furthermore, Malenfant criticized the Gallant Commission prosecutors for what he described as a selective presentation of evidence, showing only “coasters” that implied the board of directors was kept in the dark about cost overruns and delays. He countered that his own comprehensive report, which he feels was ignored, was based on extensive documentation, not mere summaries.
As the Gallant Commission’s report looms, Karl Malenfant’s preemptive defense introduces a new layer of complexity to the SAAQclic saga, shifting the narrative from a singular failure to a narrative of shared responsibility and alleged corporate maneuvering.
