Summary#
Bill 43, An Act to Amend the Highway Act, would amend the Highway Act and also make changes to the New Brunswick Highway Corporation Act and a fee regulation. Its stated goal is not given in the supplied text; its main changes set rules and enforcement powers for privately owned signs near certain highways, and allow the Minister to provide tourism signs. The only version supplied is the first-reading text; no amendment documents or evidence of adoption are supplied, so later changes cannot be identified. The bill would start only on a day or days set by proclamation.
- It would generally bar privately owned signs within 150 metres of provincial and provincial-municipal highways unless they meet the Act and regulations. A sign would need its own permit unless regulations exempt its class.
- The Minister could set permit conditions, order changes to signs, and remove signs that pose an immediate hazard or visual distraction that interferes with safe highway use.
- For a lawfully displayed sign, the Minister could order a change, move or removal, and the bill says the Minister must pay the actual costs. For an unlawful sign, the person served with a notice may have to pay costs.
- The Minister could make and install tourism signs for eligible tourism businesses, maintain them, and remove them for unpaid annual fees or failure to meet regulatory requirements.
- The bill would repeal the existing Highway Advertisements Regulation. Existing permits and approvals would carry over until they expire or are cancelled; unpermitted advertisements would be treated as contraventions when the new provisions start.
What it means for you#
- Businesses, organizations and local governments displaying signs: You would generally need a permit for each sign in the regulated area, unless regulations exempt that sign’s class. You would have to follow permit conditions and sign rules set by the Act and regulations.
- Landowners, permit holders and sign owners: The Minister could serve you with a notice to change, move or remove a sign. For an unlawful sign, a notice could instead require you to apply for a permit or take other steps to comply. In an immediate-hazard case, the Minister or an agent could enter premises, remove the sign with or without notice, and dispose of it.
- People who do not comply with an unlawful-sign notice: Failure to comply within 30 days would be an offence that continues for each day of non-compliance. The minimum fine would be doubled; for an offence lasting more than one day, the minimum and maximum fines would be multiplied by the number of days. The exact dollar amounts are not stated in the supplied text.
- Tourism businesses: You could apply for a tourism sign, but the Minister may provide one only if you meet eligibility criteria set by regulation. You would have to pay the prescribed annual maintenance fee to keep it maintained.
- Taxpayers: The bill requires the Minister to pay actual costs when requiring changes, relocation or removal of a lawfully displayed sign. The bill gives no estimate of that spending.
Money#
Estimated public cost: No publicly available information.
- The Minister must pay actual costs for changes, relocation or removal ordered for a lawfully displayed sign. No estimate is supplied.
- People served with a notice about an unlawful sign may have to pay the actual costs of required changes, relocation or removal. The bill also allows recovery of certain government costs as a debt.
- Tourism businesses would pay an annual maintenance fee set by regulation. No fee amounts are supplied.
- No staffing, administration or enforcement cost estimate is supplied.
What is unclear#
- The Highway Act, the related fee regulation and the New Brunswick Highway Corporation Act as currently in force were not supplied, so the full change from current law cannot be verified.
- The bill leaves key details to future regulations, including permit eligibility, duration, sign standards, exemptions, tourism-sign eligibility and fees.
- It does not set out an appeal process for permit decisions or notices, or explain how the Minister would decide when a lawfully displayed sign should be changed or removed.
- The bill requires payment of actual costs for certain orders involving lawful signs, but also says no compensation is payable for changes, relocation or removal under those orders. How those provisions fit together is unclear.
- The start date depends on proclamation. The supplied material does not say when that would happen.
Case for#
- The bill appears intended to address highway safety by letting the Minister act quickly when a sign is an immediate hazard or visual distraction.
- A permit system could give the government a way to set different sign rules based on sign and highway classes.
- Tourism businesses could apply for government-made and installed signs directing visitors to their businesses.
- The bill provides for payment of actual costs when the Minister orders changes to a lawfully displayed sign.
Case against#
- The bill gives the Minister broad discretion over permits and over changes to signs already displayed lawfully; the text does not set out a review or appeal process.
- Requirements and exemptions depend heavily on future regulations, so people cannot tell from this bill alone what signs would qualify or what they would cost.
- For unlawful signs, people served with notices may face removal costs, continuing offences and fines, while the Minister may enter premises and remove a sign in an immediate-hazard case.
- The text’s unclear relationship between required cost payments and its “no compensation” provision could create uncertainty for sign owners.