Bill 26 amends the Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act, 2006 to create two new statutory park classes—Adventure Class Parks and Urban Class Parks—define their objectives, and permit the government to prescribe additional classes by regulation. The bill also designates Charleston Lake as an Adventure Class Park and Uxbridge Urban as an Urban Class Park, and requires adventure-park management plans to include a policy to maintain existing uses compatible with the class objectives.
This matters because the change explicitly opens provincial parks to a broader set of recreational activities—up to and including activities that may alter the natural environment or permit motorized uses—and gives the Lieutenant Governor in Council a continuing power to create new classes and objectives by regulation. The amendment shifts decision-making levers for park planning, recreational development, and conservation priorities and will affect park managers, municipal planners, recreation operators, and conservation stakeholders.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill inserts two new park classes into section 8 of the Act with written objectives: Adventure Class Parks (allowing outdoor activities that may alter natural features, including motorized uses) and Urban Class Parks (to improve access near urban centres). It also names Charleston Lake and Uxbridge Urban Provincial Park as examples of each class and adds a regulatory power to create further classes.
Who It Affects
Provincial park managers and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry will adopt new management-plan content and permitting approaches; municipalities, trail operators, and commercial recreation businesses will face new opportunities and regulatory questions; conservation groups and Indigenous communities may confront altered land-use pressures.
Why It Matters
By embedding recreation-focused objectives in statute and allowing future classes by regulation, the bill reduces ambiguity about whether higher-impact recreation can be approved in provincial parks and creates a statutory basis for infrastructure changes, motorized access, and urban-proximate parks.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Bill 26 rewrites the Act’s classification framework so that provincial parks can be explicitly labeled and managed for different types of recreation. The legislature added two named classes. “Adventure Class Parks” are defined to provide opportunities for outdoor activities that may require changes to the natural environment; the Act lists examples including rock climbing, tree-top trekking, mountain biking and driving motorized snow vehicles or off‑road vehicles. “Urban Class Parks” are defined to improve access to compatible nature-based recreation in or near urban centres.
The government used the bill to immediately classify two parks: Charleston Lake is now an Adventure Class Park and Uxbridge Urban Provincial Park is an Urban Class Park. For adventure-class parks the statute also requires management plans to include a policy to maintain existing uses that are compatible with the adventure objective, which creates a statutory constraint on how those plans handle ongoing activities.In addition to these substantive definitions and designations, the Act amends the regulation-making power (subsection 54(1)) so the Lieutenant Governor in Council can prescribe further classes of parks and specify objectives for any prescribed class.
That gives the executive branch a flexible tool to create new statutory park types without further primary legislation. The Act comes into force on royal assent and includes a short-title provision.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Act adds two explicit park classes—Adventure Class Parks and Urban Class Parks—to section 8 of the Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act, 2006.
Charleston Lake Provincial Park is statutorily classified as an Adventure Class Park; Uxbridge Urban Provincial Park is statutorily classified as an Urban Class Park.
The Adventure Class objective expressly contemplates recreational activities that may alter the natural environment, and it lists examples including rock climbing, tree-top trekking, mountain biking and driving motorized snow vehicles or off‑road vehicles.
A management plan for an Adventure Class Park must include a policy for maintaining existing uses that are compatible with the adventure-objective, effectively preserving status‑quo compatible activities.
The amendment to subsection 54(1) gives the Lieutenant Governor in Council authority to prescribe additional classes of parks and to specify the objectives of any prescribed class by regulation.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Adds new statutory park-class slots
This paragraph inserts numbered entries into subsection 8(1) to create statutory slots for Adventure Class Parks, Urban Class Parks, and a catch-all for other classes that may be prescribed by regulation. Practically, this is the paper change that enables the later subsections to attach objectives and classifications to those named slots.
Defines the objectives for the two new classes
Subsection 8(8) defines Adventure Class Parks to permit recreational activities that 'may or may not require alterations' to natural features and gives explicit examples, including motorized uses. Subsection 8(9) sets Urban Class Parks’ objective as improving access to compatible nature-based recreation near urban centres. These objective statements become the statutory guideposts for management planning, permitting and enforcement decisions.
Immediate park designations
The Act immediately classifies two named parks: subsection 8(10) lists Charleston Lake as an Adventure Class Park and subsection 8(11) lists Uxbridge Urban as an Urban Class Park. A designation in primary legislation narrows discretion for future governments and sets expectations for both recreational uses and conservation measures in those specific parks.
Management-plan requirement for adventure parks
Subsection 8(12) mandates that an adventure-class park’s management plan must include a policy for maintaining existing uses compatible with the adventure objective. That creates a statutory floor—park managers cannot remove or prohibit existing compatible activities without addressing that policy—potentially complicating efforts to restrict harmful uses introduced prior to designation.
Regulatory authority to add classes and define objectives
This insertion (clause (0.a)) expands the Act’s regulation-making power to allow the Lieutenant Governor in Council to prescribe classes of parks for subsection 8(1) and to specify objectives for each prescribed class. The change delegates substantive classification authority to the executive and lowers the legislative bar to create new statutory park types in future.
Commencement and short title
These short provisions make the Act effective on royal assent and set the Act’s short title. There is no phased implementation schedule or transition rules in the bill; the new statutory classes and the two specific designations take effect immediately upon assent.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Urban residents and municipal planners near Uxbridge — the Urban Class objective prioritizes improved access to nature-based recreation close to urban centres, which supports municipal efforts to expand local park amenities and active‑transportation links.
- Commercial adventure and outdoor recreation operators — the Adventure Class statutory objective and the explicit listing of higher‑impact activities create clearer legal footing for businesses that provide rock‑climbing, mountain‑biking, canopy tours or motorized recreation.
- Trail and user groups (including motorized‑vehicle associations) — having a statutory class that contemplates motorized and intensive uses reduces the regulatory uncertainty those groups face when proposing new trails or facilities in designated parks.
- Park management and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) — the law gives managers clearer statutory categories and objectives to guide permitting and planning decisions, which can streamline decision‑making where the new objectives align with existing local use patterns.
Who Bears the Cost
- Conservation organizations and ecologists — by authorizing alterations to the natural environment and motorized uses in adventure parks, the bill raises the risk of habitat disturbance, erosion, and biodiversity impacts that conservation groups will need to monitor and contest.
- Indigenous communities with interests in affected parklands — the Act does not specify consultation or reconciliation measures tied to the new classes, so communities may face increased development pressure and potential impacts on traditional uses without new statutory protections.
- MNRF and park managers — the ministry must revise management plans, perform environmental assessments or impact studies for proposed higher‑impact activities, and enforce new policies with no accompanying funding in the bill.
- Municipalities and local infrastructure funders — urban‑proximate park development may require investments in access roads, parking, transit links and services, shifting costs to local governments if provincial capital funds do not follow.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between expanding access and economic opportunity through more permissive recreation classes versus protecting ecological integrity and Indigenous/legacy uses; the bill resolves this by privileging statutory objectives for recreation and delegated regulatory flexibility, but it leaves open how to measure 'compatibility' and how to prevent incremental degradation through successive regulatory changes.
The bill trades clarity for flexibility: it clearly authorizes higher‑impact recreation in statute for adventure parks but leaves many operational questions unanswered. The phrase 'may or may not require alterations to the natural environment' creates wide latitude for approving physical changes, yet the Act does not define thresholds, environmental assessment triggers, or how to balance alterations against existing conservation protections.
That gap pushes difficult decisions—what degree of trail hardening, cliff bolting, or motorized access counts as compatible—into management planning and regulatory design, where judicial review and public scrutiny will be the main external checks.
Delegating the power to create additional park classes and specify their objectives to the Lieutenant Governor in Council speeds policy responses but raises accountability concerns. Regulations can embed permanent policy shifts without the same scrutiny as primary legislation, and the bill contains no procedural guardrails (for example, required public consultation, Indigenous consultation standards, or criteria for class creation).
The management‑plan requirement for adventure parks to 'maintain existing uses that are compatible' may also freeze in pre‑existing uses that have already degraded ecological values, creating a legal barrier to restoration unless compatibility is redefined.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.