Published September 29, 2026 · Équipe Le Québec Vote
Véo, a project to modernize student-records management at the Université de Sherbrooke, remains active thirteen years after its initial authorization. The [Québec dashboard for public-sector IT projects](https://www.tableaudebordprojetsri.gouv.qc.ca/tableau-de-bord/mode-liste/autres?cHash=81d8393a3d380625bbf9b8611d0923f6&tx_tdbrisct_tdbri%5BcurrentPage%5D=7) last updated its entry on August 27, 2026. It shows a **projected total cost of $100,607,700** and a **projected completion date of May 1, 2027**. The accompanying [open-data file](https://www.donneesquebec.ca/recherche/dataset/1076a4fb-b217-4703-921b-dd92671dc03d/resource/f8c657cb-bcf2-4b1d-a916-b32e35b35bca/download/2026_09_02_projets_ri.csv) records **$96,203,700 spent**. Both its cost and schedule indicators are red.
The figures raise a straightforward question that the public records examined do not yet answer: **what is the most recently approved Véo budget, and how far above it is the current forecast?** The dashboard compares $100.6 million with an "authorized" baseline of $36.56 million. Yet the [Vérificateur général du Québec (VGQ), Québec's auditor general](https://www.vgq.qc.ca/Fichiers/Publications/SR/216/Suivi%20des%20recommandations%202024-2025.pdf), documents a **$96.4-million authorization in December 2022**. The university's board approved a further **revised budget on March 30, 2026**, but its amount is absent from the [public minutes](https://www.usherbrooke.ca/decouvrir/fileadmin/sites/decouvrir/documents/direction/proces_verbaux_ca/CA-2026-03-30.pdf).
The cost increases over more than a decade and the delays are well documented. But describing the project as "$64 million over its current budget" would mistake the dashboard's comparison for a comparison with the latest approved budget, which we could not establish.
## A long-running project, not a system with no deliverables
Véo is intended to replace the old student-records system and bring together administrative and academic processes. The [VGQ's June 2021 audit](https://www.vgq.qc.ca/Fichiers/Publications/rapport-annuel/174/32347_vgq_ch05_juin-2021_web.pdf) says the board authorized a **$33.9-million budget** in June 2013, with completion expected in **2018–19**. After planning and development problems, a project overhaul led to a **$65.4-million** envelope in February 2019 and a **2022–23** deadline. The auditor also records an interim estimate of $82.4 million before the project's scope was reduced; that was not the budget ultimately approved at the time.
The [VGQ's 2025 follow-up](https://www.vgq.qc.ca/Fichiers/Publications/SR/216/Suivi%20des%20recommandations%202024-2025.pdf) traces a **$96.4-million authorization in December 2022**, then linked to a September 2025 deadline. The budget still stood at $96.4 million in May 2025, but completion had moved to December. Testing that spring had revealed missing essential functions in one module. According to the university, as reported by the VGQ, the main cause was an incomplete assessment of needs at the project's outset. In June 2025, the university still rated the risk associated with its core modules as high.
The opposite shortcut would also be wrong: [the university lists several modules already online](https://www.usherbrooke.ca/services-informatiques/repertoire/applications/veo), including admissions, diploma issuance and academic program information. The same page says Véo remains in progress. Its [2025 IT report](https://www.usherbrooke.ca/sti/realisations-ti) says some other modules had reached a code freeze and others were approaching one. Some services are operating; that does not establish that the entire promised system is complete.
## Three official presentations that answer different questions
The table keeps each figure in its proper category. Adding or subtracting them without their dates and scope would invite a misleading conclusion.
| Source and reference date | Reported amount | What it does—and does not—establish |
|---|---:|---|
| [VGQ, board authorizations](https://www.vgq.qc.ca/Fichiers/Publications/SR/216/Suivi%20des%20recommandations%202024-2025.pdf) | $33.9M in 2013; $65.4M in 2019; $96.4M in 2022 and May 2025 | History of university-approved budgets, alongside changes in scope and completion dates. |
| [Dashboard, updated August 27, 2026](https://www.tableaudebordprojetsri.gouv.qc.ca/tableau-de-bord/mode-liste/autres?cHash=81d8393a3d380625bbf9b8611d0923f6&tx_tdbrisct_tdbri%5BcurrentPage%5D=7) | $36.56M "authorized"; $100.61M projected | Its authorized field retains a comparison baseline despite later board decisions documented by the VGQ. The listing does not explain the method or scope behind the difference. |
| [2026–2036 Québec Infrastructure Plan, p. B.58](https://www.assnat.qc.ca/Media/Process.aspx?MediaId=ANQ.Vigie.Bll.DocumentGenerique_219567&process=Original&token=ZyMoxNwUn8ikQ+TRKYwPCjWrKwg+vIv9rjij7p3xLGTZDmLVSmJLoqe%2FvG7%2FYWzz) | $53.3M from Québec; $28.9M from partners; $82.2M total | An infrastructure-plan presentation using its own reference date and funding categories. It does not, on its own, explain the dashboard's August estimate. |
| [University board, March 30, 2026](https://www.usherbrooke.ca/decouvrir/fileadmin/sites/decouvrir/documents/direction/proces_verbaux_ca/CA-2026-03-30.pdf) | Revised budget approved, **amount not disclosed in the public minutes** | The IT master-plan appendix and documents relating to the decision were declared confidential. |
The calculation **$100,607,700 − $36,561,800 = $64,045,900** explains the dashboard's roughly **175%** cost variation. Its [FAQ](https://www.tableaudebordprojetsri.gouv.qc.ca/faq) says a red indicator represents a variation of at least 30% against the listing's authorized parameters. Red is therefore neither an audit finding of fraud nor an automatic measure of how far the project exceeds the university board's most recent approved budget.
The difference between the $100.61-million forecast and the most recent **publicly quantified budget in the sources examined**, $96.4 million, is about **$4.21 million**. But that, too, is not the variance against the *current* budget: another budget was approved in March 2026 without an amount in the public minutes. Nor is the projected $100.61 million an amount already spent or necessarily all paid by Québec. The CSV separately lists $96.20 million in spending; the infrastructure plan provides a government-partner breakdown using another reference date.
There may be legitimate administrative explanations for these different figures: an original baseline deliberately retained on the dashboard, different project boundaries, updates made at different times, or distinct financing conventions. Those are hypotheses for the university, the Ministère de l'Enseignement supérieur and the Ministère de la Cybersécurité et du Numérique to address—not established explanations.
## What the auditor general actually found
The [VGQ's 2021 findings](https://www.vgq.qc.ca/Fichiers/Publications/rapport-annuel/174/32347_vgq_ch05_juin-2021_web.pdf) were critical of Véo's early planning. The auditor found deficiencies in the initial plan and an underestimated budget. The 2013 tender received two bids: **$6.5 million and 11,635 person-days** for the selected bid, versus **$47.5 million and 46,072 person-days** for the other. An external firm involved in the project's planning had estimated **39,124 person-days** of development. The VGQ said the university had not adequately examined those gaps, even though the winning bid risked understating the effort required.
The report also described major ambiguities in the tender and a subsequent renegotiation. A **$2.1-million** increase to the original contract, about a month and a half after award, had not received the approvals required from university authorities or been reported to the Secrétariat du Conseil du trésor, according to the VGQ. This is a finding about contract-management rules. It does not assign the project's entire cost increase to one supplier or establish fraud.
For the first four years, the information provided to governing bodies did not allow them to grasp the problems clearly, the auditor found. The university later overhauled the project's organization and improved its controls. In its [2025 follow-up](https://www.vgq.qc.ca/Fichiers/Publications/SR/216/Suivi%20des%20recommandations%202024-2025.pdf), the VGQ rated progress on governance and monitoring **satisfactory**. On the same page, it noted that Véo remained incomplete and that weaknesses in the original planning continued to matter. A favourable assessment of specific corrective measures is neither a completion certificate nor a clean bill of health for the ultimate cost.
A [contract register published by the Ministère de la Cybersécurité et du Numérique](https://cdn-contenu.quebec.ca/cdn-contenu/adm/min/cybersecurite_numerique/Acces_information/Demande_acces/2025-2026/58_Decision_2025-2026.pdf) also records a **$120,000** assignment to KPMG, running from January 9 to March 31, 2023, to audit Véo's governance and management. The [university board referred to that audit in March 2023](https://www.usherbrooke.ca/decouvrir/fileadmin/sites/decouvrir/documents/direction/proces_verbaux_ca/CA-2023-03-27.pdf). We have not obtained the full report or its recommendations and cannot infer any further findings from its existence.
## "Confidential" is not evidence of election-related concealment
The [March 30, 2026 board minutes](https://www.usherbrooke.ca/decouvrir/fileadmin/sites/decouvrir/documents/direction/proces_verbaux_ca/CA-2026-03-30.pdf) are clear that a decision was made, but reveal little about its financial details. The board authorized the projects in its IT master plan, **including a revised Véo budget**, and declared documents relating to that decision confidential. It also received a quarterly report dated January 31, 2026, whose documents and information it likewise declared confidential. The exact budget and the justification for the new forecast are not in the public minutes.
Confidentiality warrants questions, especially for a project that appears in the Québec Infrastructure Plan with a provincial contribution. It does not by itself establish **why** the documents are protected or a connection to the October 5, 2026 election. The [December 2022 budget decision](https://www.usherbrooke.ca/decouvrir/fileadmin/sites/decouvrir/documents/direction/proces_verbaux_ca/CA-2022-12-12.pdf) also had confidential appendices: the practice did not first appear on the eve of the 2026 vote. Véo's difficulties were already public in the VGQ's 2021 audit and 2025 follow-up; the dashboard itself discloses a red rating and a new cost forecast. The records reviewed do not prove an election-related concealment effort. Nor do they settle whether the currently approved budget is transparent enough.
## The missing answer
The public documents examined do not state **the amount approved in March 2026**, its breakdown, the completion date approved at that time, or a reconciliation of the dashboard, VGQ and infrastructure-plan figures. They also do not establish precisely which core modules—registration, grading, academic progression and finances—are in production, which remain to be delivered, or what supports the new May 1, 2027 deadline. The 2023 KPMG report and its follow-up plan were not obtained for this investigation.
**Véo is neither a context-free red dashboard entry nor a project that has delivered nothing.** The documents establish years of revisions, $96.2 million in spending at the last update, and a $100.6-million forecast. They leave open the key question for measuring the present overrun: **what is the university's most recently approved budget, and how is the project being financed?**