For example, in the context of inquiries into the implementation of the act, if a charge is laid against a given company, until the evidence and its guilt have been established, we do not make that information public. We do not want to cause any harm. People are presumed innocent until proven guilty. So we protect that kind of information. However, once the decision is rendered or the court has ruled, our file is opened. We can then disclose the information, except for the names of the persons, which are deleted.
Furthermore, as I told you earlier, the information is protected in cases where property rights are at issue. In addition—and this is perhaps what Mr. Ranger meant—we must communicate with the people from the company to give them the opportunity to be heard, to say what they have to say before the information is disclosed. That is a matter of procedural fairness. Whatever the case may be, based on the case law and on what the access to information coordinators do, we normally see that that information is subsequently made public.