Summary#
The Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Amendment Act, 2025 amends Ontario’s Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act, 2006. It adds two park classes and gives the Lieutenant Governor in Council power to create more classes by regulation; the stated goals are to support compatible nature-based recreation near urban centres and outdoor recreation that may alter the natural environment. The Act received Royal Assent and came into force that day; the material does not give the date.
- Charleston Lake Provincial Park is classified as an Adventure Class Park, and Uxbridge Urban Provincial Park as an Urban Class Park.
- Management plans for Adventure Class Parks must include a policy for maintaining existing uses that are compatible with that class’s objective.
- Regulations may add park classes and set objectives for them.
- The Act does not itself approve particular activities at either park.
What it means for you#
- Park users: The new objectives recognize different kinds of recreation. But the Act does not say that any listed activity—such as mountain biking or off-road vehicle use—is automatically allowed at a park.
- People with existing uses in Adventure Class Parks: The park’s management plan must include a policy to maintain existing uses that are compatible with the class objective. The bill does not define “compatible.”
- Park managers and the Ontario government: They must include that policy in Adventure Class Park management plans. The Lieutenant Governor in Council may create additional park classes and set their objectives.
- General public: The stated objective for Urban Class Parks is to improve access to compatible nature-based recreation in or near urban centres. The Act does not guarantee particular facilities or access changes.
Money#
No cost information is in the available material.
- The Act requires management plans for Adventure Class Parks to include a policy, but gives no estimate of the cost or staff needed.
- The supplied material describes no appropriation, fee, fine, or new benefit.
What is unclear#
- How decision-makers will determine whether an existing use is compatible with an Adventure Class Park’s objective.
- Whether and how existing park rules or plans will change for the two newly classified parks.
- What process, if any, will guide the creation of further park classes or the setting of their objectives.
- The amendment does not set out consultation, review, or reporting requirements for these changes.
- The full parent Act was not supplied, so the amendment’s interaction with existing park rules and management processes could not be verified.
Case for#
- A possible argument for the bill is that separate park classes can set different objectives for different settings and types of recreation.
- The urban class objective could help guide efforts to improve access to nature-based recreation near urban centres.
- The adventure class objective expressly recognizes activities that may involve changes to the natural environment, rather than limiting the class to activities that do not.
- Requiring management plans to address compatible existing uses may help preserve those uses while plans account for the new objective.
Case against#
- The bill does not define “compatible,” so users and managers may not know which existing uses the required policy will maintain.
- The adventure class objective includes activities that may alter the natural environment, but the amendment does not set out limits or how impacts will be assessed.
- The power to create further classes and objectives by regulation has no criteria in this amendment.
- The Act sets objectives but does not guarantee improved urban access or authorize specific recreational activities.