Summary#
Bill 23, An Act Respecting the Right to a Healthy Environment, would create a new law called the Environmental Bill of Rights. It would recognize environmental rights, require public participation in some government decisions, and create an Environmental Rights Commissioner’s office. The bill’s stated goal is to protect a healthy and ecologically balanced environment for present and future New Brunswick residents; that is a goal, not a guaranteed result. This is the first-reading text supplied, so the bill is not law and later changes cannot be verified from the materials provided.
- Every New Brunswick resident would have a right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, and the provincial government would have a duty to protect that right. The bill defines a resident as someone who has lived continuously in the province for at least one year.
- The Environment Minister must create a public environmental registry within one month after the law starts. The Environment and Health ministers must jointly prepare environmental goals and consult the public on certain proposed policies, instruments and regulations.
- The bill would establish an Environmental Rights Commissioner’s office within government, not a new independent corporation. The Commissioner could review compliance, educate and assist the public, investigate some complaints, and access relevant government information, with specified exceptions.
- Two residents could ask the Commissioner to review policies or laws, or investigate alleged contraventions of acts, regulations or instruments named in regulations.
- Residents would gain broader access to court: any resident could seek judicial review of a government decision in an environmental-rights matter, and a resident could sue a person for certain actual or imminent environmental harm.
- The bill would protect employees from workplace reprisals for specified environmental actions. The Labour and Employment Board could order remedies, including reinstatement or compensation.
What it means for you#
- Residents: You would have a stated legal right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. Two residents could apply to the Commissioner for a review or investigation. A resident could also bring certain court cases without being directly affected. The bill does not guarantee that a complaint or lawsuit would succeed.
- People taking environmental cases to court: A resident could sue over a person’s actual or imminent contravention of a provincial law, regulation or instrument that has caused or will imminently cause environmental harm. The court could order an injunction, damages or other remedies. For specified harm from agricultural operations, a plaintiff must first apply to the Farm Practices Review Board.
- Workers: An employee could complain to the Labour and Employment Board if an employer takes specified reprisals for environmental actions listed in the bill. The employer would have to prove the reprisal was not for a prohibited reason.
- Government departments: The Commissioner could require relevant information and documents. Solicitor-client privileged material and certain Executive Council material are excluded. The Commissioner’s investigation recommendations are not described as binding orders.
- Indigenous peoples: The bill says it is to be applied in a way that promotes Indigenous rights and upholds existing Aboriginal and treaty rights. It does not set out a specific process for Indigenous participation.
Money#
No publicly available information on the bill’s total cost or a fiscal estimate.
- The Commissioner must receive a salary and benefits, and may hire staff. The bill gives no staffing numbers or cost estimate.
- The government must establish the registry and prepare and review the Statement of Environmental Values; costs are not estimated.
- Damages awarded in an environmental protection action would go to the government for environmental restoration or improvement. The bill does not estimate possible amounts.
- The Labour and Employment Board could order an employer to pay compensation for lost earnings or benefits.
What is unclear#
- Regulations would set important details, including registry content, consultation procedures, which laws can be the subject of investigations, and complaint requirements. Those regulations are not included.
- The bill does not define “material harm” or give detailed rules for deciding when environmental harm is imminent.
- It does not set a specific process or deadline for public consultation, apart from requiring consultation as prescribed by regulation.
- The Commissioner must report on investigations and make recommendations, but the bill does not require the Minister to follow them.
- The bill would start only on a day set by proclamation. No start date is provided.
Case for#
- The bill appears intended to make environmental protection a stated legal right and a government duty, rather than only a policy goal.
- A public registry, consultation duties and measurable environmental goals could make some government decisions more open to public input.
- A Commissioner could review government compliance and help residents participate, while court access could provide a way to challenge some decisions or harmful conduct.
- Reprisal protections could help employees take part in environmental processes without losing their jobs or facing other listed penalties.
Case against#
- The bill creates broad rights and court access, but key terms and procedures are left to regulations or are not defined. That could make the scope of the rights uncertain.
- The Commissioner could access extensive government information, while the bill does not set out a detailed process for resolving disputes about requests beyond its stated exceptions.
- The Commissioner’s recommendations do not have to be followed under the bill, so reviews may not lead to a required government response or change.
- The bill could add costs for government offices, employers and court cases, but the supplied material does not estimate those costs.