Well, I would argue that the right to request an investigation under the Ontario legislation is more powerful, in that it puts an obligation on the two applicants. They have to provide evidence. Their request doesn't have to be a prima facie court case, but it has to provide evidence. Then it goes to the ministry responsible for the enforcement issue in hand. That ministry has 60 days to respond on whether or not they will do that investigation. If the answer is they will not, they have to give reasons, and those reasons are subject to my independent review.
So it is a more formal and structured mechanism of response. It's dealing specifically with what potentially would be a provincial offence. So I think it is more rigorous than the petition process, as I understand it, where people can bring forward concerns and the evidentiary burden is not great, and where people are potentially by their nature less sophisticated. They may know something or sense that things are wrong and they...there's not rigour on that part, so the response from the government ministry may not in fact be as thorough.
It may be the case that the Auditor General's office may comment on those, but again, the interaction of information is not as rigorous because it's not as structured. So I think our system is more structured and, therefore, that it gives a better outcome, even if that outcome is negative and the ministry says no and gives good reasons why they are not doing that.