We haven't done that comparison. As I said, it's difficult to compare. We would even almost have to do a joint comparison with the Privacy Commissioner's office, because in other countries these institutions are mostly joined.
The other big consideration is that it's important to understand that the field of access to information is different from the field of privacy around the world. If you look at OECD countries, privacy commissioners' offices are at least quite well funded. If you go anywhere else around the world, access to information offices are scrambling for resources. Not surprisingly, it's quite an underfunded pillar of democracy around the world because it is usually a thorn in the government's side. It's a very different function in many respects, and so in many respects most unpopular with governments most of the time.
I haven't done the comparative. As I said, the closest I could see is the operations of the Ontario commissioner in volume, amount of work, and so on. They do have order making powers so they don't have a backlog in looking at the volume. Their financing is about $50 million. That's the best comparison I could find. I couldn't even compare our office to the U.K. commissioner's office because they have privacy and access, order making power, and most of those institutions have education and audit mandates, which we don't have. It's difficult to compare.