Summary#
Bill 43 would replace New Brunswick’s current highway advertising rules with a broader system for privately owned signs near provincial highways. It would require permits for most signs within 150 metres of a highway, while giving the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure new powers to set rules, order changes, and remove signs. The stated policy purpose appears to be managing highway signs and protecting safe highway use.
- The bill defines a “regulated area” as land within 150 metres of a provincial or provincial-municipal highway.
- Most privately owned signs in that area would need a permit, unless regulations create an exemption.
- The Minister could set rules about a sign’s design, size, location, construction, content and purpose.
- The Minister could require a legal sign to be changed, moved or removed, while paying the actual cost of complying with that order.
- Unlawful signs could lead to removal orders, court action, recovery of government costs and continuing daily fines.
- The current Highway Advertisements Regulation would be repealed and replaced by new rules made under the bill.
The bill was introduced at first reading on May 12, 2026. It would start only on a date set by proclamation. The supplied material does not show that it has been enacted.
What it means for you#
- Businesses, organizations and local governments: If you display a sign within the regulated area, you may need a separate permit for each sign. Some signs could be exempted later by regulation.
- Sign owners and landowners: The Minister could send a notice requiring a sign to be redesigned, moved, removed or brought into compliance. Notices could be sent to the landowner, the permit holder or the sign owner.
- Owners of existing permitted signs: Existing permits and approvals under the current rules would continue until they expire or are cancelled. Their existing conditions would also continue.
- Owners of existing unpermitted signs: An advertisement displayed without a current permit or approval would be treated as an unlawful privately owned sign when the new rules start.
- People applying for permits now: Applications already started under the current rules would be completed under the old process.
- Tourism businesses: The Minister could make and install tourism-direction signs, called TOD signs, for eligible tourism businesses. The business may have to pay an annual maintenance fee and meet requirements set by regulation.
- Drivers and highway users: The bill could reduce or control signs that are considered immediate hazards or visual distractions. The Minister could remove such a sign immediately, with or without notice, and could enter premises to do so.
- People who do not comply: Failing to follow a notice about an unlawful sign would be an offence. The offence could continue each day until the person complies. The minimum fine would be doubled, and the fine could increase with each day of non-compliance.
- Timing: The bill does not set a start date. The government would need to bring it into force by proclamation.
Expenses#
The bill may create administrative and compliance costs, but no estimate is available.
- Government: The Minister would administer permits, inspect signs, issue notices, install and maintain some TOD signs, and possibly remove signs. No public cost estimate is provided.
- Businesses and other sign owners: They could face permit costs, design or construction costs, relocation or removal costs, and annual maintenance fees for TOD signs. The bill does not state the amount of these fees.
- Unlawful signs: The person served with a compliance notice would generally have to pay the actual cost of changing, moving or removing the sign. The government could recover related costs as a debt.
- Lawful signs ordered changed: If the Minister directs that a lawfully displayed sign be changed, moved or removed, the Minister must pay the actual cost of complying with that notice.
- Fines: A person who does not comply with a notice about an unlawful sign could face a continuing daily fine. The exact dollar amounts are not stated in the bill.
- No fiscal note or budget estimate is included in the supplied material.
Proponents' View#
No specific public statements from proponents were supplied. Based on the bill’s design, possible arguments in favour include:
- The bill could create one broader system for controlling privately owned signs near provincial highways.
- Permit rules and standards could help reduce signs that distract drivers or interfere with highway safety.
- The power to remove an immediate hazard without delay could allow faster action when a sign creates a safety risk.
- Clear cost-recovery rules could ensure that owners of unlawful signs pay for government removal or enforcement costs.
- A formal TOD sign system could give tourism businesses a government-managed way to direct visitors from highways.
- Giving regulations the power to set different standards for different highway and sign types could allow more detailed rules than the current Act provides.
Opponents' View#
No specific public statements from opponents were supplied. Possible concerns based on the bill include:
- The bill gives the Minister broad discretion to require changes to a sign that is already displayed legally, including when the Minister simply considers it appropriate in the circumstances.
- Many important details would be left to future regulations, including exemptions, permit requirements, permit periods, design standards and eligibility rules. The effects cannot be fully assessed from the bill alone.
- Landowners, sign owners and permit holders could all receive notices and may face overlapping responsibility for the same sign.
- Immediate removal powers allow entry onto premises and disposal of a sign without prior notice when the Minister considers the sign an immediate hazard or visual distraction. The bill provides broad protection from lawsuits for actions taken in good faith.
- Businesses with unlawful signs could face removal costs, government cost recovery, court proceedings and continuing daily fines.
- The bill does not clearly explain how decisions to refuse, cancel or change a permit could be reviewed or appealed.
- The Minister would pay costs for changes ordered for a lawfully displayed sign, but no compensation would be paid for a sign changed, moved or removed after an unlawful display or court order.