I wouldn't go so far as to say that cases like ArriveCAN are widely being repeated everywhere.
The questions that arise the most concern the use of consultants to provide policy or management advice to the public service, when there is the expertise within the public service to provide advice, guidance and recommendations to ministers. It's a little more surprising that subcontractors are being used for this.
The same is true for the management advice provided to ministers, when the public service should normally be well equipped in that regard. These are valid questions, but my office doesn't have the capacity to assess whether there are many other cases similar to ArriveCAN.
I would like to think that the Auditor General is doing this study as part of her normal work.