Thank you. I am more familiar with the wording in English, so I'll speak English if you allow me.
Under our act, the commissioner has the authority to publish or not publish the name of the institution, the nature of the violation, and any penalty that is imposed. That's a very important aspect of FCAC's flexible approach to encouraging and enforcing compliance and changing institutional behaviour. I think that's precisely what's contemplated by our act: to bring the institutions back into compliance and change their behaviour, while obtaining the best potential outcome for consumers.
Our regime is not a punitive one, so when I am looking at whether to name or not name an institution, I have to look at each case on its own merits individually. I look at things and consider factors such as the egregiousness of the actions of the institution, its willingness to take responsibility for its actions, the deterrent impact that naming might have, the impact it can have on consumers and consumer confidence, the level of collaboration and co-operation during the investigative process, and the institution's commitment to take any and all actions to prevent any future breaches and correct the ones they've already committed.
I would say that notices of violations and decisions, and the discretion afforded by section 31, are only part of the picture. When I am deciding whether or not to name an institution, I am looking at what exactly will change the behaviour of the institution, what will bring it into compliance, and, more importantly, whether the best outcome for consumers will result from the naming, and that involves reimbursement to consumers.