We're willing to do any work that's consistent with our mandate and doesn't threaten the credibility of the organization. For instance, we'd feel uncomfortable if there was a risk of being perceived to influence our current estimates based on forecasts that we make of the data. We don't operate in that space.
That said, we already do some modelling and impact analysis. There are various programs within the agency that do that. If we were to do that in a case like this, we'd be after complete transparency, including being very clear in terms of our sources of data and assumptions that go into a model.
For instance, if you were to take a look at our cannabis portal, cannabis not yet being legal, there is still a requirement for us to identify what's going on out there, and we're attempting to model it on how it would fit into GDP. We've modelled our estimates of cannabis's contribution to GDP. We make this information publicly available and we make our assumptions publicly available, and on our information portal we, in fact, allow users to change the assumptions if they don't believe our assumptions, so that they can see how the estimates would change. That's the kind of transparency we're after.