This is a new area, so it's not possible to understand exactly how much business will arise until it actually occurs.
We have worried about issues around workload. In the legislation there are a couple of measures in place to try to reduce the workload surge that might occur. It has been set out in the legislation that the PBO has recourse to government costing and government information. For instance, if a party were to propose something in the area of Canada student loans, that might be something that ESDC could cost very quickly. The PBO has the right to ask for support from government. It still remains the PBO's costing, but in order to facilitate its ability to do that costing in an effective way, there is access to government.
Another way the legislation tries to address the issue of burden is by having allocating additional resources. The PBO would have additional resources as a result of committees having been dissolved during an election time period. That would free up resources. Indeed, the annual work plan is a way for the PBO, in the year of an election, to say if the fixed election date is being followed, “I expect to get a surge in business, and I can canvas who is likely to use the services of the PBO in an election period.” That could form a part of the work plan discussion and, indeed, the budgetary discussion.
The other thing I'd note is that unlike the Australian case, doing the costing is not mandatory. In the Australian case, the PBO is required to cost everyone's platform after an election. That's not the case here.