Bill would move regulatory bodies to regulations

Summary#

Bill 26, An Act to Amend the Fair Registration Practices Act, would amend that existing Act; it would not create a new law. Its stated change is to remove the Act’s schedules listing prescribed regulatory bodies and persons, and let regulations prescribe which bodies count as regulatory bodies. The supplied material gives no broader stated goal.

  • The definition of “regulatory body” would become a body prescribed in regulations.
  • The bill would give regulation-makers power to prescribe those bodies. The supplied text does not identify who makes the regulations.
  • Schedules A and B would be repealed. The bill adds no power to prescribe persons in regulations.
  • If passed, the bill says it would come into force on December 17, 2026. It is at the first-reading stage, so passage is uncertain.

What it means for you#

  • Applicants and people dealing with a regulatory body: Which bodies would be covered depends on the regulations. The bill does not name them. The parent Act was not supplied, so I could not verify what duties or protections the Act gives people dealing with those bodies.
  • Regulatory bodies: Whether a body is covered would depend on whether it is prescribed in regulations, rather than appearing in the Act’s schedules.
  • People listed as prescribed persons: The bill repeals the schedules and does not add a way to prescribe persons in regulations. The supplied material does not explain what legal effects, if any, that change would have for them.
  • The public: The bill does not directly change registration requirements, create a new service, or set fees or penalties in the text provided.

Money#

No publicly available information on costs is included in the supplied material.

  • The bill does not state a spending amount, cost estimate, staffing requirement, fee, or fine.

What is unclear#

  • The parent Act was not supplied, so the existing duties and protections under the Fair Registration Practices Act, and the current contents of Schedules A and B, could not be verified.
  • The bill does not identify which bodies would be prescribed in regulations or when those regulations would be made.
  • The supplied text does not identify who would make the regulations or explain the process for adding or removing bodies.
  • The bill does not explain how removing prescribed persons from the schedules would affect them.
  • It is unclear how the changed list would interact with any existing registration processes.

Case for#

  • A possible argument for the bill is that regulations could provide a way to change the list of covered bodies without changing the Act itself.
  • This could make it easier to update which bodies are covered. The bill does not explain how often the list would be reviewed or what checks would apply.

Case against#

  • The bill does not say which bodies would be covered after the change. People and bodies may not know the practical scope until regulations are made.
  • Moving the list out of the Act could make it harder for readers to find which bodies are covered in the Act itself.
  • The bill removes prescribed persons from the schedules without explaining what happens to any effects linked to their listed status.