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. Its stated goal is not set out beyond the subject identified in its title: disclosure of information to professional regulatory bodies. The bill is at first reading, so it is not law and may not pass.
- It would add a professional regulatory body, if authorized by a private Act to collect information, to the named recipients of information under both Acts. The information must relate to an investigation of professional services provided by one of the body’s members.
- In the Child and Youth Well-Being Act, it would also change wording about consent. The effect of that change cannot be confirmed without the full current provision.
- The bill does not say that a regulatory body must request information or that an agency must provide it.
What it means for you#
- Professional regulatory bodies: The bill would add a route for disclosure to a body that meets the stated conditions. It does not set out how a body requests information, or require agencies to respond.
- People whose information is held under these Acts: Information about you could fall within this added disclosure category if it relates to an investigation of professional services provided by a member of an eligible body. The bill does not specify notice to you or how you could challenge a disclosure.
- Government agencies: The bill does not set out a new review or application process. The supplied text does not establish whether existing rules create one.
- General public: The bill does not directly change benefits, professional licences, or penalties.
Money#
No publicly available information.
- The bill text provides no cost estimate, funding, staffing requirement, fee, or fine.
What is unclear#
- The supplied material does not include the current full text of either Act. I could not verify how these new recipient categories fit with existing disclosure limits or what the consent wording change would do.
- The bill does not define how an investigation must be conducted or what information may be collected.
- It does not set rules for requests, decisions, timelines, notice, record retention, or review of a disclosure.
- It does not say when it would come into force.
- It is unclear how the new disclosure category would interact with other confidentiality or information-sharing rules.
Case for#
- A possible argument for the bill is that professional regulatory bodies may need relevant information to investigate services provided by their members.
- Naming bodies authorized by private Acts, and linking disclosure to an investigation about a member’s professional services, sets conditions on who may receive information and why.
- Adding a disclosure route could make investigations possible where relevant information is held under child or family services legislation.
Case against#
- The information may concern children or families. The bill does not itself explain what notice, review, or other safeguards would apply before information is disclosed.
- The bill does not specify how much information may be shared or how a person could challenge a disclosure.
- The effect of changing the Child and Youth Well-Being Act consent wording is unclear without the full current provision.
- The bill adds a disclosure category but does not explain how agencies and regulatory bodies would handle requests or resolve disputes.