Summary#
Bill 23, An Act Respecting the Right to a Healthy Environment, would create a new law called the Environmental Bill of Rights. Its stated goal is to protect residents’ rights to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment; that goal is not a guarantee of a particular environmental result. The bill is at first reading, is not law, and would start on a date set by proclamation.
- It would recognize that every New Brunswick resident, including every child, has a right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, and place a duty on the provincial government to protect that right.
- It would require public participation opportunities in government environmental decisions. It would also require a public environmental registry and a joint Statement of Environmental Values from the environment and health ministers.
- It would establish an Office of the Environmental Rights Commissioner. The Commissioner would review compliance, provide public education and advice, and have broad access to information, subject to stated exceptions.
- Two residents could ask the Commissioner to review policies, laws, regulations or legal instruments, or to investigate an alleged breach of a prescribed law or instrument.
- Residents could seek court review of government decisions without showing they are directly affected, and bring civil actions over certain actual or imminent environmental harm. The bill also sets a process for employee complaints about reprisals.
- If this Act conflicts with another Act or regulation, the bill says this Act would prevail. How that rule would apply in particular cases is not specified.
What it means for you#
- Residents: You would gain the stated environmental right and new ways to seek review or investigation. A review or investigation request generally requires two residents; a court application for judicial review could be brought by one resident. The bill defines a resident as someone who has lived in New Brunswick continuously for at least one year.
- People concerned about a government decision: You could seek judicial review in an environmental-rights matter even if you are not directly affected. This is access to court, not a guarantee that the court will rule in your favour.
- People alleging a breach: A resident could bring a civil action against a person for breaching a provincial law, regulation or other legal instrument if the breach caused, or would imminently cause, material environmental harm. For certain harm connected to agricultural operations, the person must first apply to the Farm Practices Review Board.
- Employees: An employee could complain to the Labour and Employment Board about employer reprisals for specified environmental actions. The employer would have to prove it did not retaliate on a prohibited ground.
- Provincial government: It would have to provide public participation opportunities, publish the registry, prepare and review the Statement of Environmental Values, and protect the stated right. The bill does not require a particular decision or environmental outcome.
- Businesses and other people: A court could order a declaration, injunction, damages or another just remedy in a qualifying environmental action. Damages would go to the government for environmental restoration or, if that is not practical, environmental improvement.
Money#
The bill requires a Commissioner’s office and other government work, but no cost estimate is in the available material.
- The Commissioner would be paid within the deputy head pay plan, receive similar benefits, and be able to appoint staff considered necessary.
- The bill also requires a registry, public participation, statements and reporting. It gives no staffing or operating-cost estimates.
- Court-awarded damages would be used for the specified environmental purposes. The bill does not estimate any such payments.
What is unclear#
- Regulations would set important details, including registry information, consultation procedures, and which laws and instruments qualify for investigations and some employee protections. No regulations are supplied.
- The bill does not set detailed rules for how public participation must work, or how much weight government decision-makers must give the Statement of Environmental Values.
- Terms such as “material harm” and “effective” public participation are not further defined in the bill.
- The bill does not explain how the new right and conflict rule would interact with existing laws or programs. The parent laws it refers to were not supplied, so their current provisions and any overlap could not be checked.
- The bill gives no start date; that would be set by proclamation.
Case for#
- The bill appears intended to make environmental rights more actionable by combining public participation, access to information, review processes and court remedies.
- A possible argument for the Commissioner is that a dedicated office could review government compliance and help residents understand how to participate.
- Requiring a public statement with measurable goals, public comment and regular review could make the government explain how it considers environmental and children’s health concerns.
- The bill’s principles include precaution, polluter pays, environmental justice and protecting the interests of future generations.
Case against#
- The bill creates a broad right and says it prevails over inconsistent Acts or regulations, but does not spell out how courts and government should resolve all resulting conflicts.
- The Commissioner’s information powers are broad, while some key processes and limits would depend on regulations not included here.
- The bill requires an office, registry, consultation and reporting but gives no cost estimate or staffing plan.
- The environmental right and public participation duties do not themselves specify the outcome government must choose in a particular decision.