Right. I appreciate that, and in most instances, that....
I suppose one of the balances here is that if the language is left in the bill, the understanding then would be that the financial institution would have a broader range to exercise its discretion, and presumably would not report to someone they suspected was the abuser. I still think there is a risk there. I think there is a distinction, as you raised, with respect to the authorized representative, in the sense that an authorized representative would have legal authority—granted either by the individual themselves, when they made a power of attorney, or when they made a representation agreement under British Columbia law, or when they were appointed by the court to act.
In those instances, they're guided by law. They have a fiduciary relationship with the adult. There's an extra set of rules governing their behaviour. Yes, they too go off the rails. Yes, they too are sometimes the perpetrator. But I think at least there's greater.... Again, it's a question of balancing the right to privacy with the need to protect the adult who may be vulnerable. It seems to me there is greater justification to allow a reporting to someone who has legal authority than to someone who has no legal authority to receive the information about the adult.
That said, I think it is more important that this provision proceed than the amendment to next of kin be made. In other words, I wouldn't want to stop that section from being enacted simply because of the next of kin issue.