Obviously, it was a former Auditor General at the time, but I'm pretty sure that my answer is accurate: No, we have not been engaged in confirming that we would be okay without the funding. In fact, we provided an assurance to the contrary in the business case. At the end of it, the Auditor General at the time was clear that without this funding we could not continue to do our job the way we'd been doing it; the number of audits would go from 24 to 14. That was written in the business case, in terms of an assurance or clarity of where we would end up without the $21 million at the time.
On June 13th, 2019. See this statement in context.