There are moments in politics when a vote becomes more than just another vote in the Legislature.
For me, the defeat of Bill 23, the proposed Environmental Bill of Rights in New Brunswick, is one of those moments.
On March 26, 2026, legislation intended to establish a right to a healthy environment in New Brunswick was defeated in the provincial Legislature. The vote was reported as 46–2, with Premier Susan Holt's Liberal government joining the Progressive Conservatives in opposing the bill.
As a Nature and Wildlife Advocate, I find this deeply concerning.
Not because I believe every environmental bill is perfect.
Not because I believe government should automatically approve every proposal put forward by an opposition party.
But because the basic idea behind an Environmental Bill of Rights is something every New Brunswicker should be able to understand:
People should have a meaningful voice when the environment around them is being damaged.
What Was Bill 23?
The Green Party-led legislation sought to establish stronger environmental rights for New Brunswickers.
Among the ideas associated with the proposed legislation were greater public participation and mechanisms for citizens to challenge environmental harm, including the ability to seek legal action against polluters and the creation of an environmental commissioner capable of independently investigating environmental concerns.
That is a significant change from simply asking citizens to trust that government departments will handle environmental problems.
And that is exactly why this debate matters.
Who Speaks for the Environment?
A forest cannot walk into the Legislature.
A river cannot hire a lawyer.
A wetland cannot file a complaint.
A bird cannot tell a government department that its nesting habitat has disappeared.
Wildlife cannot vote.
That is why environmental laws exist.
They are supposed to provide protections for the natural systems that cannot protect themselves.
When pollution occurs, when habitat is destroyed or when environmental regulations are allegedly ignored, ordinary citizens should have meaningful ways to raise those concerns.
The question I keep coming back to is:
Why shouldn't New Brunswickers have stronger legal tools to protect the environment they live in?
The 46–2 Vote
The scale of the vote is particularly striking.
Bill 23 was defeated by a vote of 46–2.
That means the overwhelming majority of MLAs who voted did not support moving the legislation forward.
For citizens who care about environmental protection, this should prompt questions regardless of political affiliation.
The environment should not be a Liberal issue.
It should not be a Conservative issue.
It should not be a Green issue.
Clean water, clean air, healthy forests and wildlife habitat belong to everyone.
What About Premier Holt's Environmental Promises?
This is where I believe the issue becomes even more important.
Premier Susan Holt's government has made environmental commitments, including promises involving conservation, clean air and clean water.
The Liberal environmental platform has promoted stronger environmental protections and a goal of expanding protected lands and waters.
Those commitments sound encouraging.
But environmental leadership has to be measured by actions as well as promises.
If a government says New Brunswickers deserve clean air and clean water, then citizens should reasonably ask what legal protections actually exist when those rights are threatened.
If the government believes stronger environmental protections are necessary, why reject legislation designed to give citizens additional tools to defend the environment?
These are legitimate questions.
Holding Polluters Accountable
One of the most important principles in environmental protection is accountability.
If a company causes environmental damage, there needs to be a system capable of determining what happened, who was responsible and what should be done about it.
Government regulators have an important role.
But independent oversight can also be valuable.
That is why the proposed environmental commissioner concept deserves discussion.
An independent environmental office could potentially give citizens another avenue for raising concerns without relying entirely on the same government structures responsible for regulating the activity.
Independence matters.
Transparency matters.
Accountability matters.
This Is Bigger Than Bill 23
For me, the debate isn't really about one piece of legislation anymore.
It is about what kind of relationship New Brunswickers should have with their environment.
Do citizens have a meaningful role in environmental decision-making?
Can ordinary people challenge environmental harm?
Can communities demand independent investigations?
Can citizens hold governments and corporations accountable?
Or are environmental decisions primarily left to government departments and political leaders?
Those are questions worth asking.
Nature Needs More Than Promises
As a photographer who spends time observing New Brunswick's wildlife and natural landscapes, I see how interconnected our environment really is.
A forest isn't just trees.
A river isn't just water.
A wetland isn't empty land.
A field isn't simply undeveloped property.
Each one is part of an ecosystem.
Wildlife depends upon these systems.
People depend upon them too.
When environmental damage happens, the consequences can continue long after the original decision has been forgotten.
That is why prevention and accountability are so important.
I Believe New Brunswickers Deserve a Stronger Voice
I am not arguing that citizens should be able to stop every development project they dislike.
I am not arguing that every environmental complaint should automatically result in a lawsuit.
And I am not suggesting that industry has no place in New Brunswick.
What I am saying is simple:
New Brunswickers deserve meaningful tools to defend their environment.
There should be a fair process.
There should be evidence.
There should be independent oversight when necessary.
And when credible concerns about pollution or environmental damage arise, citizens should not feel powerless.
A Message to Government
Premier Holt and the members of the New Brunswick Legislature have an opportunity to show that environmental protection is more than an election promise.
If Bill 23 was not the right vehicle, then bring forward something better.
If there were problems with the proposed legislation, explain them publicly.
If there are stronger ways to protect New Brunswick's environment, put them on the table.
But do not allow the defeat of one bill to become the end of the conversation.
Because New Brunswick's environmental challenges are not going away.
Climate change is not going away.
Habitat loss is not going away.
Pollution concerns are not going away.
And citizens who care about their communities are not going away.
My View as an Advocate
As a Nature and Wildlife Advocate, I believe government should welcome citizens who care enough about their environment to speak up.
We should not have to choose between economic development and environmental protection.
We should be demanding both.
We can have jobs.
We can have responsible industry.
We can build communities.
We can develop infrastructure.
But we must also protect the forests, rivers, wetlands, wildlife and clean air that make New Brunswick worth living in.
The defeat of Bill 23 should therefore not end the conversation.
It should start a bigger one.
What environmental rights should New Brunswickers have?
How should polluters be held accountable?
Who investigates environmental complaints?
How independent should environmental oversight be?
And most importantly:
Who speaks for nature when nature cannot speak for itself?
As a Nature and Wildlife Advocate, I intend to keep asking those questions.
Because protecting New Brunswick's environment should never be treated as a political inconvenience.
It should be treated as our responsibility.
— Keith Dennis Brewer
Nature and Wildlife Advocate
Comments
Post a Comment