Summary#
Bill 43, An Act to Amend the Highway Act, is a first-reading bill that would amend the Highway Act and the New Brunswick Highway Corporation Act, change a fee regulation, and repeal an existing highway-advertising regulation. Its apparent goal is to regulate privately owned signs near highways and provide for tourism signs; that is a goal, not a guaranteed result. The bill is not law, and it would start only on a day or days set by proclamation.
- The bill would generally require a permit for each privately owned sign in an area extending 150 metres from the travelled portion of a provincial or provincial-municipal highway. Regulations could exempt some signs or highways and set requirements such as a sign’s design, location, size and contents.
- The Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure could set permit conditions, and could require even a lawfully displayed sign to be changed, moved or removed. For that kind of notice, the bill says the Minister must pay the affected people’s actual costs.
- For a sign displayed unlawfully, the Minister could require changes, relocation, removal, a permit application or other action to comply. People served with that notice would pay the actual costs if the Minister directs a change, move or removal.
- The Minister or an agent could remove a sign without delay if it is an immediate hazard or distracting in a way that interferes with safe highway use. They could enter premises with or without consent and dispose of the sign.
- The Minister could make, install and maintain tourism-direction signs (called TOD signs) for eligible tourism businesses. The Minister could remove one if the business fails to pay the annual maintenance fee or meet regulatory requirements.
- The bill would repeal the current highway-advertising regulation named in the bill and amend rules about highway signage fees and the New Brunswick Highway Corporation’s sign-related regulation-making powers. Existing permits and short-term approvals would transfer to the new permit system until they expire or are cancelled.
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 it. The Minister would decide whether to issue a permit and could attach conditions. The bill does not set all permit requirements; regulations would fill in many details.
- Owners of land or signs: A notice about an unlawful sign could be served on the landowner and, depending on whether a permit exists, the permit holder or sign owner. Failure to comply within 30 days would be an offence that continues for each day of non-compliance. The bill sets fines by reference to offence categories; the exact dollar amounts are not in the supplied material.
- Tourism businesses: You could apply for a tourism sign, but the Minister may provide one only if the business meets eligibility rules set by regulation. An annual maintenance fee applies, but its amount is not given here.
- Taxpayers: The Minister would pay actual costs for complying with a notice about a lawfully displayed sign. The bill also gives the Minister enforcement and sign-removal powers, but does not estimate their operating costs.
- People with existing signs or applications: Existing permits and short-term approvals would carry over. Ads in a provincial-highway regulated area that had no permit or approval would be treated as unlawful when the new rules start. Pending applications would be handled under the procedure in place when they were received.
- Highway users: The bill does not directly change road-use rules. It would allow immediate removal of a privately owned sign that the Minister considers an urgent safety hazard or visual distraction.
Money#
The bill requires the Minister to pay some sign-related costs and creates or continues fee and enforcement provisions, but no overall cost estimate is available.
- The Minister must pay actual costs when a person complies with a notice to change, move or remove a lawfully displayed sign. The bill also says no compensation is payable for changes, moves or removals required under certain notices or court orders; how that fits with the actual-cost payment rule is unclear.
- People directed to change, move or remove an unlawful sign would pay the actual costs. The Minister could also seek recovery of certain losses and expenses as a debt owed to the Crown.
- The bill refers to an annual maintenance fee for tourism signs, but the amount is not provided.
- The bill sets continuing-offence fines by reference to category C fines under another Act. The supplied material does not give those dollar amounts or estimate fine revenue.
- No estimate is provided for administering permits, making or maintaining tourism signs, or enforcing the new rules.
What is unclear#
- The supplied material does not include the current Highway Act, the regulations being changed or repealed, or the current fee amounts. I could not verify the full difference between the proposed rules and current law.
- Many requirements—including permit eligibility, duration, exemptions, sign standards and tourism-sign fees—would depend on regulations not included here.
- The bill does not set permit decision timelines, appeal rights, or a review process. It also lets the Minister impose conditions considered appropriate.
- It is unclear how the required payment of actual costs for lawful-sign notices interacts with the provision saying no compensation is payable for certain required sign changes, moves or removals.
- Only the first-reading bill text is supplied. No separate amendments or later version are supplied to show whether the text changed or was adopted.
Case for#
- The bill appears intended to address signs that may create immediate hazards or distract drivers, while setting a permit system for signs near highways.
- A permit for each sign could give the Minister a way to apply safety, location and construction requirements before or during display.
- Different sign classes and highway classes could have different requirements under regulations, allowing rules to vary by sign or road.
- Requiring the Minister to pay actual costs for changes to lawfully displayed signs could protect sign owners from bearing those costs when the Minister decides a change is appropriate.
Case against#
- The Minister could require a lawfully displayed sign to be changed, moved or removed if the Minister considers that appropriate. The bill does not set specific grounds for that decision or provide an appeal process.
- The bill allows entry and sign removal without consent when the Minister considers urgent removal necessary, and permits disposal of the sign. The supplied text does not set a process for challenging that decision beforehand.
- Many important rules would be set later by regulation, so the bill itself does not show the full requirements or costs for sign owners and tourism businesses.
- The bill’s cost rules may be difficult to interpret together: it requires payment of actual costs for some lawful-sign notices but also says no compensation is payable for certain sign changes, moves or removals.