No, you're not. You're probably understanding correctly what has been said by your colleagues, though I would like to add clarity to the complaints, for example. We are not a complaint body. We are an oversight agent. We are a regulator. We are responsible for ensuring that there is an alignment between market behaviour, the way in which consumers are treated.... I am not the Superintendent of Financial Institutions. I am responsible for financial literacy and consumer protection in the financial space.
It's part of the prudential measures that are in place in the ecosystem so that we engender trust in the system. It's making sure that customers are treated properly and fairly, and in a way that is compliant with legislative expectations and conduct expectations that are established in these various codes, whether it's for payment card networks or whether it's for financial institutions.
Our role is to ensure that when there are complaints, they are answered by the appropriate bodies, so generally by the institutions against which the complaints have been leveraged. If that's not satisfying for the consumer—because you may not be happy at the first level of complaining; you may not like the response or you may feel it's insufficient—there is actually an ombudsperson who is responsible for dealing with the complaints at another level, and it's an independent ombudsperson, as most ombudspeople are.
We did not receive 27,000 complaints. That's a media description, and yes, there was an article that said that, but it shows a lack of understanding of the role of FCAC. The role of this organization is to protect consumers, to ensure alignment with market conduct and to ensure that the actors are behaving appropriately, so that when these institutions receive complaints, they are responding appropriately to the complainants and seeing that the complainants are made whole. We can then supervise and protect related to that.