Thank you for the question.
I think how I answered a previous question about the emergency context is an important umbrella to remember. ArriveCAN was put together during a very difficult time in Canada's history and the world's history. That being said, there are certainly best practices in emergency procurement, and many of those were not followed.
The best example I can give—I know I said I'm going to talk about this very often, and I will—is documentation. Yes, decisions were required in a very brief amount of time, but that does not mean that documentation should not exist on those decisions. It's very difficult to determine that something was done fairly—and therefore, it raises suspicions as to whether it was not done fairly—when documentation doesn't exist. One of the biggest issues that I found with all of the ArriveCAN documentation we reviewed was the sheer lack of documentation in many instances.
That being said, one excellent practice that we saw was.... In emergency procurement, one of the best practices that one can do is to go to existing suppliers that are known commodities and that have been qualified, as opposed to going to new suppliers that you have no pre-existing history with. That's because they've already been vetted, so it removes some of the concerns associated with emergency procurement.
To directly answer your question, yes, I was concerned by the findings, and I think the recommendations reflect that concern. I believe the report is very factually accurate and devoid of any inflation.