Summary#
Bill 8 would change how the Order of New Brunswick’s council is organized and how some council members remain in office. It would increase the number of individuals covered by one part of the council from five to ten and create a process for removing certain members for cause (a valid stated reason).
- The bill would replace “five individuals” with “ten individuals” in the rule describing the council.
- It would remove wording that gives the Executive Council a role in determining something related to the council. The available text does not show enough of the surrounding provision to explain the exact effect.
- Members appointed under one category would remain in office until they resign, are reappointed, or are replaced.
- The Executive Council could remove those members for cause, but only after a recommendation from the Order of New Brunswick council.
- The source material is for first reading. It does not show that the bill has been passed or that any amendment has been adopted.
What it means for you#
- Members of the Order of New Brunswick council: The council would have a larger group under the provision that currently refers to five individuals. That number would become ten.
- Certain appointed council members: Members appointed under the specified category would no longer leave office simply because another time limit or condition in the existing law applies. They would stay until they resign, are reappointed, or are replaced.
- Removal from office: The Executive Council could remove one of these members for cause, but the council would first have to recommend removal.
- Members of the public: The bill does not directly change eligibility for the Order of New Brunswick, the honours awarded, or the rights and responsibilities of most residents.
- What is unclear: The supplied text does not identify the length of current terms or explain exactly what subsection 15(2) currently determines. It is therefore unclear what practical change results from removing the reference to the Executive Council.
Expenses#
No publicly available information.
- The bill does not include a cost estimate or fiscal note.
- It could create a small administrative workload for the council and the Executive Council, especially if appointments or removals require additional review.
- The bill does not create a fee, fine, tax, or spending program in the supplied material.
- Any cost of expanding the council from five to ten individuals is not identified.
Proponents' View#
No specific statements from proponents were supplied.
Possible arguments based on the bill’s text include:
- Increasing the number from five to ten could allow the council to include more people in the relevant part of its membership.
- Keeping certain members in office until they resign, are reappointed, or are replaced could provide continuity.
- Requiring a recommendation from the council before removal could add a formal review step.
- Allowing removal for cause could provide a way to address serious problems while setting a stated basis for removal.
Opponents' View#
No specific statements from opponents were supplied.
Possible concerns based on the bill’s design include:
- The bill does not explain why the number should increase from five to ten or how the larger group would operate.
- Keeping members in office without a clearly stated fixed end date could reduce regular turnover or make appointments last longer than expected.
- The meaning of “cause” is not explained in the supplied text. This may raise questions about what conduct could justify removal.
- The Executive Council would still have the final power to remove certain members, even though a council recommendation would be required.
- The bill does not clearly explain the effect of removing the wording about the Executive Council in subsection 15(2).