Bill 23 (An Act Respecting the Right to a Healthy Environment) builds a province‑level framework intended to protect environmental quality for current and future New Brunswick residents. The measure sets out purposes and guiding principles, directs government processes for public participation and information, establishes an independent Environmental Rights Commissioner, and creates new administrative and court pathways to challenge decisions and alleged contraventions.
For professionals: the bill changes how environmental information is shared and how decisions must be justified; it expands who can bring reviews, investigations and court actions; it requires a public registry and a Statement of Environmental Values; and it adds anti‑reprisal protection for employees. Those design changes will affect permitting practice, regulatory drafting, departmental workflows and litigation risk across provincial agencies and regulated industries.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires the government to adopt a Statement of Environmental Values, run a public environmental registry, and appoint an independent Environmental Rights Commissioner with broad access to information. It creates administrative routes (reviews and investigations) initiated by any two residents and gives any resident standing for judicial review and civil environmental protection actions.
Who It Affects
Provincial departments and ministers, permit‑holders and regulated industries, employers with employees who speak up about environmental harms, Indigenous communities named in the text, public interest groups and any residents seeking to challenge provincial acts, regulations or instruments.
Why It Matters
The package institutionalizes environmental principles (precautionary, polluter‑pays, non‑regression) into decision‑making, raises transparency and participation requirements, and materially increases legal exposure for government and regulated parties by lowering standing barriers and expanding remedial options.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Act opens by defining key terms and setting explicit purposes: to protect a ‘‘healthy and ecologically balanced environment,’’ prioritize children’s environmental health, and implement UNDRIP‑related obligations for Indigenous peoples in New Brunswick. It embeds core environmental principles—precautionary, polluter‑pays, intergenerational equity, environmental justice and non‑regression—as interpretive guides for applying the law.
On participation and information, the Minister must create a public environmental registry very quickly after proclamation and jointly produce a Statement of Environmental Values with the Minister of Health. The Statement looks to set measurable goals and to be reviewed every two years; draft versions must be released for public comment and sent to the Office of the Child, Youth and Senior Advocate.
The legislation requires prescribed consultation procedures for proposed policies, instruments and regulations that may affect the proclaimed environmental right.The Office of the Environmental Rights Commissioner is central to the design: the Commissioner is appointed via a selection committee and Legislative Assembly recommendation, holds a seven‑year non‑renewable term, and ranks as a deputy head. The Commissioner has broad investigatory and reporting powers, a statutory right of access to information subject to limited privilege exceptions, confidentiality duties, and the ability to make annual and special reports to the Legislature.
The office can receive and advance matters about children’s environmental health and help the public participate in government decision‑making.The bill creates two citizen‑facing processes: applications for review (to ask ministers to examine policies, Acts, regulations or instruments) and applications for investigation (alleging contraventions of prescribed laws). Both are brought by at least two residents; the Commissioner has fixed timelines to acknowledge and report progress.
Separately, any resident has standing to seek judicial review of government decisions in the Court of King’s Bench and may bring civil environmental protection actions against persons whose statutory contraventions have caused or will imminently cause environmental harm. Remedies include declarations, injunctions, damages (ordered to be paid to government for environmental restoration), and costs.
Finally, the Act creates anti‑reprisal protections: employees who participate in processes or raise compliance concerns are protected, with the Labour and Employment Board empowered to order remedies including reinstatement and compensation.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Minister must establish a public environmental rights registry within one month after the Act comes into force, and the registry must include notice of proposals, decisions and events affecting the environment and children’s environmental health.
Any two residents of New Brunswick can apply to the Environmental Rights Commissioner for a review of government policies, Acts, regulations or instruments; the Commissioner must acknowledge receipt within 10 days and report progress within 90 days.
The Commissioner is an officer of the Legislative Assembly appointed via a selection committee and Legislative Assembly recommendation for a single seven‑year term, with broad powers to access government information except solicitor‑client and certain Executive Council deliberations.
Any resident has standing to bring judicial review in the Court of King’s Bench of New Brunswick for environmental rights matters and may sue a person civilly for actual or imminent environmental harm caused by contravening provincial statutes, regulations or instruments.
If a court awards damages in an environmental protection action, the damages must be paid to the government and used for restoration, rehabilitation, or, if restoration is impracticable, environmental enhancement.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions, purposes and interpretive principles
Part 1 sets the legal compass: detailed definitions (including ‘‘environment,’’ ‘‘environmental harm,’’ ‘‘instrument,’’ and references to children and Indigenous peoples) and a list of purposes that prioritize children’s environmental health and recognition of Indigenous rights under s.35 and UNDRIP. It makes express that the Act must be interpreted through enumerated environmental principles (precautionary, polluter‑pays, non‑regression, intergenerational equity and environmental justice), which will shape administrative discretion and judicial review.
Statutory environmental right and government obligation
This short part pronounces that every resident, including children, has a right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment and imposes a general government obligation to protect that right, with specific attention to children and vulnerable populations. Practically, that creates a statutory lens for all provincial decision‑making identified later in the Act.
Public participation, registry and Statement of Environmental Values
Part 3 prescribes minimum participation standards and creates an operational transparency regime. The Minister must run an environmental registry and jointly produce, with the Minister of Health and the Chief Medical Officer of Health, a Statement of Environmental Values that explains how the Act’s purposes will be applied, sets measurable goals, and must be published within a fixed timetable. Drafts must be circulated for public comment and to the Child, Youth and Senior Advocate; the Statement is to be reviewed biennially. The part also requires prescribed consultations on proposals that may affect the statutory right.
Office and powers of the Environmental Rights Commissioner
Part 4 establishes an independent Commissioner with deputy‑head status and granular appointment safeguards—selection committee, Legislative Assembly recommendation, seven‑year non‑renewable term, and removal only for cause via legislative address. The Commissioner can review government compliance, assist departments, provide public education, accept child‑focused petitions, investigate and initiate reviews, and report annually or make special reports to the Legislature. Critically, the Commissioner has a statutory right to access necessary information across government, subject to limited privilege exclusions, and must maintain confidentiality except where disclosure is needed to support conclusions in reports.
Citizen applications for review and investigation
These parts create low procedural thresholds for public engagement: two residents can trigger a ministerial review or a Commissioner investigation. Applications for review follow a prescribed form and prompt ministerial response; applications for investigation require a solemn affirmation and supporting evidence and may be refused if frivolous. The Commissioner must provide regular progress updates and recommend outcomes to the responsible minister at the conclusion of investigations.
Expanded judicial and civil remedies for environmental harm
Part 7 expands standing—any resident may bring judicial review in the Court of King’s Bench in environmental rights contexts—and creates a private cause of action against persons whose contraventions cause or imminently will cause environmental harm. The court may grant declarations, injunctions, damages (which must be paid to government for restoration or enhancement), and costs. The Act carves out an agricultural‑operations exception tied to existing Farm Practices Review Board procedures.
Whistleblower protections, regulation‑making and review of the Act
Part 8 gives employees protection from employer reprisals for participating in Act processes or compliance activities and routes complaints to the Labour and Employment Board, which can order reinstatement, rectification and compensation. Part 9 authorizes regulations to operationalize the registry, Statement of Environmental Values, application procedures, and other technical matters; it also tasks the Commissioner with periodic review of the Act (every seven years) and requires the Commissioner to screen bills and regulations for compatibility with the Act.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Residents of New Brunswick concerned about local environmental harms — the Act lowers procedural and judicial barriers, creating clearer routes to compel review, investigation and litigation and to obtain remedies focused on restoration.
- Children and advocates for children's health — the Act expressly prioritizes children’s environmental health, requires the Statement of Environmental Values to address it, and gives the Commissioner explicit authority to receive and advance child‑focused matters.
- Indigenous peoples of New Brunswick (Mi’kmaq, Wolastoqey and Peskotomuhkati) — the Act ties its purposes to UNDRIP and s.35 rights, requires participation in decision‑making affecting rights, and elevates Indigenous conservation interests in interpretive guidance.
- Public interest and environmental NGOs — improved access to information, a public registry and broadened standing make strategic litigation and public campaigns more feasible and potentially more effective.
- Courts and legal practitioners — expanded standing and statutory remedies will generate new case law and transactional work advising clients on litigation risk, evidence standards for environmental harm, and compliance strategies.
Who Bears the Cost
- Provincial departments and ministers — they face new consultation duties, must produce and follow a Statement of Environmental Values, respond to reviews and investigations within statutory timelines, and provide extensive information to the Commissioner, increasing workload and potential legal exposure.
- Regulated industries and permit‑holders — lower litigation thresholds and extended remedies mean higher compliance costs, greater litigation risk, and the potential for orders tied to restoration spending and reputational risk.
- Employers (private and public) — expanded anti‑reprisal protections increase administrative and legal obligations to protect employees who report environmental concerns and may expose employers to Board orders, reinstatement and compensation claims.
- Taxpayers and the provincial budget — establishing and operating an independent Commissioner’s office, running the registry, conducting consultations and defending increased litigation will impose fiscal costs unless matched by explicit funding.
- Developers and proponents of projects — more stringent consideration of environmental principles and stronger requirements for consultation and disclosure could lengthen timelines, add conditions, and raise costs during permitting and approval processes.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between strengthening public protection and accountability by lowering procedural barriers, and preserving administrative efficiency, ministerial confidentiality and manageable litigation loads: the Act empowers citizens, the Commissioner and courts to enforce environmental principles, but doing so may constrain government decision‑making, intensify legal conflicts over privileged information, and impose fiscal and operational burdens that could slow the very regulatory actions the Act intends to improve.
The bill tightly links broad, normative environmental principles with administrative processes and legal remedies, but several implementation questions remain. The Commissioner’s broad access to government information is subject to limited privilege exceptions, yet the legislation does not detail dispute resolution procedures for contested claims of privilege or the standards courts should apply when balancing confidentiality against the Commissioner’s mandate.
That gap creates uncertainty for cabinet deliberations, legal advisors and departments when sensitive policy work intersects with investigations.
Lowering standing and creating a private cause of action recalibrates litigation incentives: it empowers communities and NGOs but also risks increasing the volume of proceedings, some of which may be technically weak. The Act requires ministers to consider the Statement of Environmental Values before significant decisions but stops short of defining substantive standards for review, leaving open whether courts will treat the Statement as a binding legal standard or persuasive guidance.
Funding and resourcing are not prescribed; successful implementation depends on adequate staff and budgets for the Commissioner and departments, without which the new procedural guarantees could be hollow or produce backlogs.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.