Summary#
Bill 23, An Act Respecting the Right to a Healthy Environment, would create a new law, to be cited as the Environmental Bill of Rights. Its stated goal is to protect residents’ environmental rights and improve public participation, government accountability and access to court; those are goals, not guaranteed results. The text supplied is the first-reading version, so passage is uncertain and no later amendments are reflected here.
- It would give New Brunswick residents a legal right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment and require the provincial government to protect that right, with particular attention to children and other vulnerable groups.
- The Environment and Climate Change and Health ministers would have to prepare a public statement with measurable environmental-health goals. The bill also requires public participation opportunities and consultation on certain proposed government decisions.
- It would establish an Environmental Rights Commissioner’s office. The Commissioner would review government compliance, advise the public and government, report to the Legislative Assembly, and have broad access to information, subject to exceptions.
- Two residents could ask the Commissioner to review policies or laws, or investigate alleged breaches of certain laws. Residents could also seek judicial review or bring certain environmental protection actions in court.
- It would let employees complain to the Labour and Employment Board about employer reprisals for specified good-faith environmental actions. The employer would have to prove the reprisal was not for a prohibited reason.
What it means for you#
The bill is mainly about government duties, public participation and legal routes—not a new front-line environmental service.
- Residents: A “resident” must have lived continuously in New Brunswick for at least one year. Residents could seek judicial review of a government decision in an environmental-rights matter, even if they are not directly affected. They could also bring a civil action against a person for an actual or imminent breach of a provincial law, regulation or legal instrument that causes or would cause environmental harm.
- Residents seeking a review or investigation: Two residents would need to apply together. Reviews could ask for a policy, law, regulation or instrument to be made, changed or revoked. Investigations would concern alleged breaches of Acts, regulations or instruments later specified by regulation. The Commissioner’s investigation findings lead to a recommendation to the Minister; the bill does not require the Minister to follow it.
- People bringing a court action: A court could order a declaration, injunction, damages or costs, or another just remedy. Damages would go to the provincial government for environmental restoration or improvement, not to the person who brought the case. A special rule applies to certain disturbances from agricultural operations: the person must first apply to the Farm Practices Review Board.
- Employees: An employee could complain if an employer takes specified action—such as dismissal, discipline, penalty, intimidation or harassment—because the employee acted or may act in a way protected by the bill. The Board could order the employer to stop or correct the conduct, reinstate or hire the employee, or pay compensation.
- Children and young people: The Commissioner may, on a petition or on the Commissioner’s own initiative, investigate, advocate or use dispute resolution for children’s environmental-health matters. These are powers, not duties to take every case.
Money#
The bill would create a paid Commissioner’s office and require it to have the staff needed for its work, but no cost estimate is included.
- The Commissioner would receive a salary, benefits and pension coverage. The Commissioner could appoint office staff; acting Commissioners could also receive pay and expenses.
- The bill gives no staffing numbers, budget, funding source or estimate of the cost of the registry, public participation, investigations or court-related work. No publicly available information on those costs is included in the supplied material.
- No tax, fee or fine is created. Any damages awarded under the bill would be directed to environmental restoration or improvement.
What is unclear#
- Many practical rules are left to future regulations, including registry details, consultation procedures, review procedures, and which laws can be the subject of investigations or employee reprisal complaints.
- The bill does not specify how public participation must work in each case, or what happens if a department does not follow the Statement of Environmental Values.
- “Material harm” is part of the definition of environmental harm but is not defined in the bill. The bill also does not set out a detailed test for when a government decision significantly affects environmental rights.
- The bill’s conflict rule says it prevails if it conflicts with another Act or regulation. The supplied material does not explain how that rule would interact with particular existing laws.
- No amended version or amendment record was supplied, so it is not possible to say whether changes were later proposed or adopted. The bill would start only on a date set by proclamation; no start date is given.
Case for#
- The bill appears intended to address gaps in public information, participation and accountability in environmental decision-making.
- A public registry, required consultations and a published statement with measurable goals could make government decisions and stated priorities easier to examine.
- A Commissioner with access to information and reporting duties could provide a route for complaints and scrutiny outside individual court cases.
- Broader court access and protection from employer reprisals could make it easier for residents and employees to raise environmental concerns.
Case against#
- The bill creates broad rights and duties but leaves important standards and procedures to regulations or later decisions. That could make it hard to know what the government must do in a specific case.
- Investigations are limited to laws and instruments prescribed by regulation, and the Commissioner’s recommendation does not compel a Minister to act.
- The new office, staff, registry and participation duties could require public spending, but the bill gives no cost estimate or staffing plan.
- Wider access to court could increase legal disputes. The bill does not explain how those cases would interact with existing environmental processes or how costs would be managed.