Yes. It's a difficult part of the legislation. I would suggest—far be it from me, committees are masters of their own agendas in how they move forward—that this is one piece of the legislation where there is, I think, a reasonable debate on the best way to move forward. The way we've put it forward in the legislation is obviously the way we've arrived at what we think is the best balance.
My own family experienced in years past the financial abuse of my grandmother by a caregiver. This is not an uncommon problem.
In the legislation under the current law, for example, if banks or financial advisers suspect that their client, a senior, is a victim of financial abuse, they are currently prevented from notifying proper authorities, in part because of the privacy protections. This legislation clarifies that.
The grey area is that very often the financial abuse is happening within the family. This is where it might be useful for this committee to draw in some witnesses to give the actual point-counterpoint, because it's a legitimate debate. When, for example, financial institutions, banks, clearly see or they're quite suspicious that there's financial abuse happening to a senior, if their only course of action is to inform the family, and they can't inform the authorities because of our current privacy law, that will not actually protect the senior, because it's often a family member doing the abuse.
I know that some have said that this is a hole in the legislation because it provides a financial institution the ability to inform authorities about suspected abuse of the elderly. It's true that we do create that provision, but it's because very often—I don't know what the proportion is—the financial abuse is happening within families. To inform the family would allow them to probably cover their tracks and get away with the abuse of a senior, and that's something we want to stop.