Summary#
Bill 42, An Act Respecting the Disclosure of Information to Professional Regulatory Bodies, would amend New Brunswick’s Child and Youth Well-Being Act and Family Services Act. It would add a limited disclosure route for certain professional regulatory bodies; its stated goal is not set out in the supplied text. This is a first-reading bill, so it is not law and may change or fail to pass.
- Both Acts would add a professional regulatory body as a permitted recipient of information when the body is authorized by a private Act to collect it as part of an investigation into professional services provided by one of its members.
- In the Child and Youth Well-Being Act, the bill would also replace a reference to consent required under two specific paragraphs with the broader word “consent.” The supplied material does not show the full context, so the effect of that wording change is unclear.
- The bill does not create a new regulator, require regulators to investigate, or set out an application or review process. It does not set disclosure timelines or rules for how information must be handled after disclosure.
What it means for you#
- People whose information is covered by these Acts: Their information could be disclosed to a qualifying professional regulatory body under the new exception. The bill does not explain which records or people are covered in practice.
- Professional regulatory bodies: A body could receive information through this route only if a private Act authorizes it to collect information as part of an investigation into a member’s professional services. The bill does not require a body to seek information or investigate.
- Government bodies or others holding the information: The bill adds a permitted disclosure route in both Acts, but the supplied text does not show who holds the information or all existing limits on disclosure.
- The public: The bill does not create a new public service, fee, fine, or regulator.
Money#
No cost information is in the available material.
- The bill does not state a spending amount or provide an estimate for staffing or other costs.
- It does not expressly appropriate money in the supplied text.
What is unclear#
- The parent Acts are not supplied, so the existing disclosure rules and the full effect of the amendments cannot be verified.
- The Child and Youth Well-Being Act change from specific consent references to “consent” is not explained; it is unclear whether it changes who must consent or when.
- The bill does not set out how a regulator would request information, how a disclosure decision would be made, or whether notice or consent is required.
- The terms “professional services” and “investigation” are not defined in the supplied text.
- The bill does not explain what safeguards or limits apply to information once a regulatory body receives it.
Case for#
- A possible argument for the bill is that it could let a regulator obtain information relevant to investigating a member’s professional services.
- The route is limited to bodies whose authority to collect information comes from a private Act, and to information sought as part of an investigation concerning one of their members.
- The bill adds a disclosure route without creating a new regulatory body or requiring investigations.
Case against#
- One concern is that information covered by these Acts could be disclosed to a regulator without the bill spelling out when consent is needed or how affected people would be notified.
- The bill does not set out request procedures, decision rules, or safeguards for information after disclosure.
- The unclear change to the consent wording in the Child and Youth Well-Being Act makes it difficult to tell whether the bill would alter existing consent protections.