October 28, 2026

28 October 2026

Letter to the Premier of New Brunswick and the ministers responsible for the natural gas development review from CAPE, NB Lung, NBASGA, Sierra Club and UNB Environmental Law Society

Dear Premier and Ministers:

We, the undersigned organizations, support maintaining New Brunswick’s hydraulic-fracturing moratorium. We also support a transparent, evidence-based public review in which New Brunswickers can express their views through clear questions and balanced information.

We are writing to raise serious concerns about the government survey, Understanding New Brunswickers’ Perspectives on Natural Gas Development,” as available on October 5.

The survey does not ask whether respondents want the hydraulic-fracturing moratorium maintained. Instead, it asks about broadly defined natural gas development, links development to public-service funding, and leaves key distinctions and risks unexplained.

These shortcomings are important because the government has identified public support as a central consideration in its review. A questionnaire that does not clearly ask about the decision under consideration cannot provide a reliable answer to that question.

We ask the government to correct the survey and explain how responses will be analyzed and used before drawing conclusions about support for changing the moratorium or its conditions.

This letter has two parts. First, we identify the survey changes needed before its results can be treated as meaningful evidence of public opinion. Second, we recommend a broader public process for any review of the moratorium.

1. Ask directly about the moratorium

Question 12 asks respondents for their overall opinion regarding “potential future natural gas development in New Brunswick.” It does not ask whether they support maintaining, changing or lifting the hydraulic-fracturing moratorium.

These are different questions.

A respondent might support continued production from existing wells while opposing expanded hydraulic fracturing, or support some forms of natural gas development while rejecting commercial-scale shale-gas development near homes, drinking-water wells or sensitive ecosystems.

Question 9, which refers to existing production in the Sussex region, makes this distinction especially important. The questionnaire does not explain how that limited production differs from the larger-scale development that could follow changes to the moratorium.

Government should add a direct question asking whether respondents support maintaining the current hydraulic-fracturing moratorium. Questions about other development options should clearly identify the activities being considered.

Responses to the present Question 12 must not be reported as a mandate to lift the moratorium.

2. Do not use hospitals and schools to promote an unproven revenue stream

Question 10 invokes health care, education and infrastructure to create a favourable association with natural-resource development. These are public priorities funded through many revenue sources; their importance does not establish a case for hydraulic fracturing.

People who oppose fracking still want well-funded hospitals and schools. Asking whether natural-resource revenues support those services invites agreement without showing that expanded shale-gas development would generate substantial net royalties, exceed public costs, or outperform other economic choices.

Because the questionnaire offers no evidence of substantial net public revenue, this framing risks making opposition to fracking appear to be opposition to essential public services.

The placement of Question 10 before the overall support question compounds the problem by supplying a favourable reason to support development without equivalent information about costs and liabilities.

A credible fiscal assessment must examine potential revenues alongside infrastructure expenses, regulatory and monitoring costs, subsidies, environmental damage, effects on other economic activities, and long-term closure and remediation liabilities.

Government should remove Question 10 in its present form. If it wishes to assess views on the fiscal case for development, it should ask about demonstrated net public benefits and publish the evidence supporting any projected royalties.

Agreement that resource revenues can support public services must not be reported as support for hydraulic fracturing.

3. Explain what development could involve

The survey asks people to express an opinion without providing a concrete description of the development being considered.

It does not identify plausible well and well-pad numbers, locations, timelines, water needs, wastewater volumes, truck traffic or related infrastructure. Nor does it distinguish exploration from a sustained commercial industry.

Scale is very important. Limited experience with minimal existing production in NB cannot, by itself, establish the impacts or acceptability of substantially larger development.

Where the scale remains uncertain, government should say so and provide balanced information about plausible scenarios, evidence, projections and unresolved questions.

Public support for an undefined activity cannot reasonably be treated as informed acceptance of a much larger undertaking.

4. Examine whether the moratorium conditions have been fulfilled

The introduction says the government will assess whether the conditions associated with the moratorium remain the most effective regulatory approach today.

That framing leaves a fundamental question unresolved: have those conditions been fulfilled?

The government should publish the conditions, explain what evidence would show each has been met, and identify outstanding requirements.

The review should also explain how it addresses the findings and recommendations of the New Brunswick Commission on Hydraulic Fracturing.

Changes in technology are relevant, but so are changes in scientific understanding of health, groundwater, methane emissions and cumulative effects. The review must examine both.

5. Address the missing questions explicitly

Although the survey refers to water, health and some economic risks, several issues need clearer treatment:

• Cumulative impacts from commercial-scale development.
• Protection of private drinking-water wells, including detecting contamination, establishing responsibility and providing prompt remedies.
• Wastewater treatment, transportation and disposal.
• Methane emissions and compatibility with climate commitments.
• Financial security for closure, remediation and long-term liabilities.
• Commercial viability under lower gas prices and higher costs.
• Alternatives for meeting energy needs and creating economic opportunities.
• First Nations rights and the distinct processes required to address them.

First Nations rights appear in the introduction but not in Question 13’s review priorities. Climate impacts appear in Question 11 but are also absent from Question 13.

Neither issue should depend on respondents using an “Other” field. An opinion survey cannot resolve First Nations rights questions or substitute for appropriate engagement with rights-holders.

6. Do not turn selection limits into permission to neglect safeguards

Questions 11, 13 and 15 limit how many options respondents may select.

Prioritization can be useful, but water protection, public health, enforcement and economic accountability are interconnected. Selecting three does not mean accepting neglect of the others.

Question 15 is particularly concerning because it asks respondents to choose among basic features of a credible review: scientific evidence, independent experts, health and environmental information, publication of evidence, updates and an explanation of the final decision.

Government should commit to all of these features, not make them contingent on a ranking exercise.

7. Publish the methodology and limits of the results

The survey copy does not explain how participation is recruited, duplicate submissions are addressed, responses are weighted, or non-resident responses are handled.

Government should publish those details, along with the complete questionnaire, field dates, participation numbers and analytical methods. Reporting should distinguish participating respondents’ views from claims about New Brunswickers generally.

If the questionnaire is revised, government should disclose the changes and explain how responses to different versions will be treated. Written comments should be analyzed transparently while protecting personal information.

Requested action on the public survey

Before relying on survey results, we ask government to:

1. Revise the questionnaire to ask directly about maintaining the hydraulic-fracturing moratorium and to distinguish minimal existing production from expanded development.
2. Remove Question 10 in its present form and provide balanced public information about potential benefits, public costs, risks, scale and uncertainties, including the evidence supporting any projected royalties.
3. Publish an assessment of whether the existing moratorium conditions have been fulfilled.
4. Disclose the evidence, independent expertise and reasoning used in the review.
5. Publish the survey methodology and safeguards against overstating its findings.
6. Provide sufficient additional time for participation after any substantive revisions. At a minimum, with or without changes, extend the comment period to November 30.

A broader public process for reviewing the moratorium

We believe any decision on New Brunswick’s fracking moratorium requires an independent, public, evidence-led review with meaningful participation by affected communities and public-interest groups. An online survey and departmental technical committees can contribute evidence, but a decision of this significance needs a broader process that builds on the first New Brunswick Fracking Commission and examines current knowledge.

We recommend a public process organized around four essential safeguards:

1. Independent mandate and accountable decision-making.
   Establish a commission or equivalent independent body with expertise in groundwater, geology, public health, ecology, economics, regulation and long-term liability. Publish its membership, qualifications, conflicts of interest, timetable, decision criteria and terms of reference, and authorize it to recommend retaining the moratorium. The final report should identify uncertainties and dissenting expert views, explain how public input affected its conclusions, and require a public government response to each recommendation.
2. Transparent evidence and realistic development scenarios.
   Create a bilingual public information hub containing the studies, technical findings, economic models and proposed regulatory changes informing the review, with plain-language summaries of uncertainties and limitations. The review should account for the first Fracking Commission’s recommendations, test realistic commercial-scale scenarios against transparent assumptions, assess public costs and long-term liabilities, and compare development with retaining the moratorium and other energy and economic options. Government should give  the review body access to relevant departmental records, modelling exercises and resources to commission independent research where evidence gaps remain. Any confidentiality restrictions should be narrowly justified.
3. Meaningful participation and public scrutiny
   Allow at least 60 days after publication of the core evidence package for initial public submissions, with extensions when significant new material appears. Provide French and English participation, accessible formats, regional public hearings, online sessions, written submissions and practical support so residents, municipalities, watershed organizations, health organizations, farmers and public-interest groups can review evidence and question government, industry and independent experts through a fair process. Government should publish draft findings from the technical review committees and their proposed recommendations for a further public comment period before the review is finalized. Government should provide participant funding for coordination, travel and independent technical advice, together with published hearing records and written responses to unanswered questions.
4. A distinct process with Indigenous rights-holders.
   Develop the approach with the Nations concerned, including participation resources and protocols for handling Indigenous knowledge. General public engagement or participation in a commission must not be treated as fulfilling the Crown’s responsibilities toward Indigenous rights-holders.

We request a written response before survey findings are used to support any decision about the moratorium.

The New Brunswick government has committed to open dialogue and stated that no decision has been made. Correcting this questionnaire would give those commitments practical meaning.

New Brunswickers deserve a clear question, balanced information and an honest account of their answers. The present survey does not provide a sound basis for claiming public support to lift the fracking moratorium

Sincerely,

Dr. Renée Turcotte MD, Co-chair, CAPE NB-ACME NB
Jim Emberger, Spokesperson, New Brunswick Anti-Shale Gas Alliance
Melanie Langille, President and CEO, NB Lung
Sydney Beres, University of New Brunswick Environmental Law Society
Gretchen Fitzgerald, Executive Director, Sierra Club Canada