Summary#
Bill 8, An Act to Amend the Order of New Brunswick Act, would amend that Act. The supplied text states no goal for the changes. It is a first-reading bill, so it is not law; no later version or adopted amendments were supplied.
- It replaces “five individuals” with “ten individuals” in section 11. Without the Act, it is unclear what this number limits or counts.
- It removes the words “as determined by the Executive Council” from section 15(2). The surrounding text is not supplied, so the effect of deleting those words cannot be confirmed.
- A member of the council appointed under paragraph 15(1)(c) would remain in office until resigning, being reappointed, or being replaced, despite the existing rule in subsection 15(3).
- The Executive Council could remove that member for cause (a stated reason), but only on the council’s recommendation.
What it means for you#
- Council members appointed under paragraph 15(1)(c): The bill would set out when their membership ends and would allow removal for cause on the council’s recommendation.
- Executive Council and the council: The Executive Council would have the stated removal power. The council’s recommendation would be required first.
- General public: The text does not create a public application process or a new right to receive an honour. Without the full Act, it is unclear how changing the number in section 11 would affect the number of people recognized.
Money#
No cost information is in the available material.
- The bill provides no spending amount or funding source. It also gives no estimate of any staffing or administrative costs.
What is unclear#
- The supplied material does not include the Order of New Brunswick Act, so the current rules and the full effect of these amendments could not be checked.
- The context for “five individuals” and “ten individuals” is missing; the text alone does not show what the number governs.
- The text does not show what section 15(2) says apart from the words to be removed, so the effect of that deletion is unclear.
- The existing rules in subsection 15(3), which the new tenure rule overrides, are not supplied.
- The bill does not state when it would start. As a first-reading bill, whether it will become law is uncertain.
Case for#
- A possible argument for the bill is that it gives the specified council members a clearer tenure rule, rather than leaving their time in office subject to the existing rule in subsection 15(3).
- Requiring the council to recommend removal for cause could provide a check before the Executive Council removes one of these members.
- Increasing the number from five to ten could allow for a larger number of whatever section 11 covers, though the supplied text does not show what that is.
Case against#
- The bill does not explain what the number in section 11 counts, making it hard to judge the practical effect of doubling it.
- It does not define “cause” or set out how the council would make or provide its recommendation.
- A member could remain in office without a stated end date unless they resign, are reappointed, or are replaced. The bill does not explain when replacement would happen.
- The effect of removing “as determined by the Executive Council” cannot be assessed without the rest of section 15(2).