I would say there are differences of procedure and of substance.
With respect to procedure, I think we have experienced what members of Parliament have experienced. The normal interactions out in the country with groups and communities were vastly curtailed. With respect to how we made decisions and so on, a lot of it was virtually, as the committees are experiencing, and often at all hours of the day and night, given the amount of business and the extent of the impacts of the pandemic. People were pressed. People were tired. Some public servants were doing their work but knowing that it was not being called on. Other public servants were under pretty unrelenting pressure to deliver. The same is true for ministers.
With respect to the substance, I would say that none of us have been happy with the speed at which analysis had to be undertaken. In fact, we conveyed informally, as did the former government during the financial crisis, to the Office of the Auditor General that we anticipated that there would be mistakes. We set out our objectives in advance so that there would be understanding in the Auditor General's office about the constraints that were affecting things.
In this particular case, if we had all the time in the world, I am sure—I'm speculating here—that one of the options to mount this kind of program would be, “How could we accelerate the development of the service corps?” In the circumstances, action was required sooner than that, and that led to what we're now familiar with.
I don't present any of that as an excuse for any mistakes that collectively may have been made or may subsequently come to light, but simply to provide background to the nature of the circumstances.