Published October 4, 2026 · Équipe Le Québec Vote
**Does public spending on technology give Quebec businesses a fair opportunity? An interview with Jeremy Easterbrook on QUB brings that question into focus, with a reported figure of approximately $10 billion over eight years.**
On October 2, 2026, Index’s president and co-founder appeared on Benoit Dutrizac’s program. The [official segment description](https://www.tvaplus.ca/qub/benoit-dutrizac/on-ris-dans-notre-face-deplore-un-expert-concernant-les-contrats-dans-le-domaine-du-numerique-au-quebec-1847513683) describes an analysis of 800,000 contracts and calls for tenders. It reports that approximately $10 billion was awarded directly to foreign companies over the previous eight years.
These are the figures announced for the interview, not a total independently calculated by LeQuébecVote. We have not obtained the full report, its tables or a usable complete transcript. This article examines the figures reproduced in the official description and provides context from public documents; it is not an exhaustive account of the interview.
The warning deserves scrutiny. Understanding it requires separating three questions: who receives the contracts, how they are awarded and what the public gets in return.
## What the two figures prompt us to ask
The figure of 800,000 suggests a large body of records. By itself, however, it does not establish how many distinct digital contracts were included in the calculation. Are a call for tenders and the resulting contract counted separately? Does an amendment appear as another entry? Which sectors and organizations are covered?
These questions determine what the result means. A collection of published records is not necessarily a list of unique contracts. We are not assuming the analysis contains duplicates; we are identifying what would need to be checked to reproduce it.
The same care is needed with the $10 billion. A contract’s initial value, its ceiling including options and the payments actually made answer different questions. Without the tables, the reported amount cannot be treated as money definitively spent, much less as taxpayer losses.
A denominator is also missing: the total value of comparable digital procurement during the same period. A large amount does not show its share of the market or whether that share is growing.
The exact start and end dates matter too. “The previous eight years” is not precise enough to allocate the figure across fiscal years or attribute it entirely to one government.
## Direct awards are a legal purchasing method, subject to conditions
Under [Quebec’s procurement rules](https://www.quebec.ca/gouvernement/faire-affaire-gouvernement/gestion-contrats-gouvernementaux/contrats-gouvernementaux/modes-sollicitation-contrats-gouvernementaux), direct awards are allowed below certain thresholds and, above them, in specified circumstances such as an emergency or a sole supplier. Their use does not automatically establish an irregularity.
Assessing a purchase requires examining the justification and applicable conditions. Was it genuinely impossible to approach other businesses? Was the emergency documented? Were needs defined early enough to allow competition?
The debate therefore extends beyond the administrative label. An authorized process can still be questioned for its price, results or openness to new suppliers. Conversely, a call for tenders does not by itself guarantee that every capable competitor has a realistic opportunity to participate.
## Cloud procurement adds an important distinction
The Ministère de la Cybersécurité et du Numérique’s [cloud computing and specialized technology brokerage service](https://www.quebec.ca/gouvernement/services-organisations-publiques/services-transformation-numerique/courtier-infonuagique) qualifies solutions and service providers and establishes framework agreements. Client organizations may then award certain contracts directly to these suppliers under the applicable rules.
A contract recorded as a direct award can therefore be part of a prior qualification process. The reported total would need to be broken down to show how much involves this mechanism, other exceptions or purchases below the thresholds.
That distinction would support more precise questions: how do suppliers enter the catalogue? Do requirements match the assignment’s risk? Have needs been compared with available solutions? Does qualification simplify purchasing while preserving enough competition?
Applying a single explanation to every contract in an aggregate total would be premature.
## Competition problems have nonetheless been documented
On February 6, 2025, the [Autorité des marchés publics](https://www.quebec.ca/nouvelles/actualites/details/ciusss-du-centre-sud-de-lile-de-montreal-lautorite-des-marches-publics-se-prononce-sur-lattribution-dun-contrat-de-gre-a-gre-60832) challenged the sole-supplier justification for the purchase of two firewalls by the CIUSSS du Centre-Sud-de-l’Île-de-Montréal. Other qualified resellers existed. That finding concerns this particular purchase; it does not validate the total reported on QUB.
In a separate case, on January 13, 2026, the AMP [identified several failings at the SAAQ](https://www.amp.quebec/communique/Decision-2026-01), including inadequate planning, the splitting of requirements and a lack of transparency concerning contracts related to CASA/SAAQclic.
These interventions show why justifications and oversight matter. They do not establish that all digital purchases have the same shortcomings. A serious investigation must connect each criticism to the documents for the contract concerned.
## Buying Quebec technology: access and results
Easterbrook is a co-signatory of the Réflexe numérique québécois manifesto. A [description by another participant](https://www.yanikguillemette.com/reflexe-numerique-quebecois-nos-decideurs-doivent-agir/) explains its goal: encouraging buyers to give greater consideration to local solutions.
For taxpayers, the issue can be expressed concretely. A business capable of meeting a need should have an opportunity to demonstrate its value. That requires relevant requirements, understandable assignments and a process proportionate to their complexity.
Quebec ownership does not remove the need to assess quality, security, cost or delivery capacity. Local suppliers and multinationals should face the same questions: what results are promised, how will they be measured and what happens if they are not achieved?
The analysis must also define “foreign company.” Does it refer to headquarters, corporate control or the origin of the product? A contract can combine foreign software with services delivered locally. Without that breakdown, the reported amount does not directly measure wealth leaving Quebec.
## Local preferences encounter trade rules
The government explains that [public procurement liberalization agreements](https://www.quebec.ca/gouvernement/faire-affaire-gouvernement/gestion-contrats-gouvernementaux/gestion-contractuelle/accords-liberalisation/principes-seuils-application) impose non-discrimination obligations for the markets they cover. Their application depends on factors including thresholds and the entities involved.
Reserving every purchase for Quebec businesses cannot therefore be presented as a simple administrative decision that applies everywhere. A policy proposal must specify what is already permitted and what changes it would require.
This constraint does not end the discussion. Buyers can also examine whether specifications describe needs properly, requirements are proportionate and purchasing teams know the available solutions. These are questions for evaluation, not evidence that local businesses were excluded in every case analyzed.
## The information that would make the debate verifiable
Assessing Easterbrook’s warning would require a table connecting the amounts to individual contracts: the exact period, organizations, suppliers, award method, value used and treatment of amendments.
The [SEAO open dataset](https://www.donneesquebec.ca/recherche/dataset/systeme-electronique-dappel-doffres-seao) provides a public avenue for verification. It does not replace the study’s selection method or the documents explaining each decision.
For buyers, useful answers would identify the solutions compared, reasons for the choice, final expenditure and results delivered. Advocates of local procurement would need to show which solutions could have met the requirements and on what terms.
The debate should go beyond a striking amount. It should make it possible to verify whether institutions pay appropriate prices, choose suitable solutions and give capable businesses a real chance to deliver.
**The interview raises an important issue of competition and economic development. The reported $10 billion warrants detailed scrutiny; by itself, it establishes neither equivalent waste nor unlawful awards. Publishing the methodology and the contracts behind that total remains the next step in establishing the problem’s scale.**