Parks & Risks: PC plans for three provincial parks could set ‘dangerous precedent’
By Anushka Yadav, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, The Pointer
This article was originally published by Anushka Yadav, a Local Journalism Initiative Reporter with The Pointer, on Aug 26, 2025, at 10:44.
WASAGA BEACH & PARRY SOUND, ONTARIO – Leana Trulsen, an Ontario resident and avid camper, was soaking in the last golden days of August at Grundy Lake Provincial Park when she learned of a government plan that could carve out part of the protected oasis for highway development.
In February, Doug Ford promised to complete the Highway 69 expansion and push a road through to the Ring of Fire during a campaign stop in Sudbury.
“The good news is, guys, we’re widening Highway 69,” Ford said during a media scrum. “Last time I was here, which wasn’t that long ago, I drove that highway, that’s treacherous, you’re putting your life in your hands.”
Five months later, the PC government is now proposing to follow through with the highway plan, eyeing pieces of two protected provincial parks.
Ontario’s Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) has put forward a plan to remove sections of both French River and Grundy Lake provincial parks to accommodate the widening of Highway 69 between Parry Sound and Sudbury.
“Although it does not seem the proposal will take up much of the land from the provincial park, I don't think it's ok to do this without the permission of the Anishinaabeg peoples as Grundy is part of their treaty rights,” Trulsen, who manages the Facebook group Grundy Lake Provincial Park Fans, told The Pointer.
“I believe widening the highway would be a benefit for people travelling, but at what cost?”
The proposal, which was posted to the Environmental Registry of Ontario on July 25 and is open for public comment until September 11, states Grundy Lake Provincial Park would lose approximately 12.5 hectares in the western and southwestern parts of the park to highway widening.
French River Provincial Park, which is mostly made up of waterways and covers over 73,000 hectares, would lose about nine hectares in total; a small piece (1.1 hectares) where the highway crosses the river, and another larger section (7.9 hectares) just south of Highway 522.
If approved, 1.7 hectares would remain with the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) for the new highway corridor. The rest would go to other parties: three hectares to CN Rail for a realignment, and 4.3 hectares to the Municipality of Killarney to expand a landfill.
To move forward, the province must amend Ontario Regulation 316/07 under the Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act, which governs the classification and protection of Ontario’s provincial parks.
Former senior Ontario planner and architect of the Greenbelt Plan, Victor Doyle, has spent years camping in the region and says he can’t recall a time when provincial parkland was cut for highway infrastructure.
“I know that area quite well. I'm an outdoorsy guy. I camp up there all the time. I don't ever really recall in my time about expropriation from provincial parks or removal of land,” Doyle told The Pointer.
Under the Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act, the Ontario government can remove up to one percent of a park’s total area without reporting it to the legislature, provided the amount is under 50 hectares. Any larger removal must be brought before provincial lawmakers.
The removals proposed for Grundy Lake and French River parks fall within that legal limit. But environmental advocates warn even small land removals should raise red flags.
“Anytime you’re chipping away at a protected area, you’re reducing the overall amount of protected land in the province,” Katie Krelove, the Ontario Campaigner for Wilderness Committee, said.
Currently, less than 11 percent of Ontario is protected, putting the province near the bottom of the pack when it comes to conservation nationally.
In 2022, Canada committed, under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, to safeguard 30 percent of its lands and waters by 2030. Ontario has yet to embrace this 30 by 30 target, despite clear recommendations from its own Protected Areas Working Group.
This inaction comes in sharp contrast to public sentiment: polling by the working group found 86 percent of Ontarians support expanding protected areas across the province.
“Ontario is supposed to be growing protected places…we should never be moving backwards,” Krelove said.
She recommends that whenever land is removed from protected parks, an equivalent amount should be added, using Crown or private lands, to maintain or grow Ontario’s network, as mandated by existing park management legislation.
So far, the government has leaned heavily on private land trusts to expand protections, but Krelove warns these efforts aren’t enough to meet ambitious conservation goals.
For real progress, Ontario must focus on Crown land, which is how the province’s protected parks were initially established.
The last major effort, the Lands for Life process in the early 2000s, added just over one percent to Ontario’s protected land by balancing ecological protection with industrial needs. Led by the Ministry of Natural Resources, it involved public consultations, roundtable discussions, and the creation of stewardship reserves in resource-rich areas.
"Lands for Life is intended to strike a balance between the protection and use of Ontario's natural resources. Through the program, we will complete a system of parks and protected areas that will represent the full range of the province's natural and cultural features. Lands for Life will also give greater certainty to those who depend on the land and its natural resources for their livelihood,” a Lands for Life bulletin published in September 1997, explained.
Krelove stresses any removal of protected land today should be matched with equivalent additions, just as Lands for Life once did, so Ontario doesn’t lose ground in protecting its natural heritage.
Looking at the map of the proposed changes for Highway 69, she flagged the provincial parks, especially French River, are home to one of the remaining large populations of the endangered Massasauga rattlesnake, along with moose and deer.
“If the highway is cutting through those habitats, we need to see clear plans for wildlife crossings and other mitigation measures. Right now, those details are absent,” she emphasized.
Although two-lane roads are responsible for nearly 90 percent of wildlife collisions, highlighting the potential safety benefits of expanding Highway 69, Krelove emphasized that the proposal lacks transparency; no environmental assessment has been provided, leaving the public in the dark about how the project could affect park ecosystems, wildlife populations, or whether less disruptive alternatives were considered.
What alarms Doyle more is the proposed landfill expansion.
“It's not an engineered landfill or anything. This is where they want to expand the landfill site, on what used to be provincial parkland. They just want to start dumping raw garbage,” he said, highlighting how in many northern areas, people still drive into landfill sites, and have to throw their garbage out of their cars over a hill.
“We’re still doing this in Ontario, dumping garbage directly into the environment.”
He contrasted this with conditions in southern Ontario.
“Down in Muskoka or other cottage country areas, they have sites with big steel bins for recycling and garbage. Then they haul it all to engineered landfill sites and facilities. But the further north you go, it’s just the old way,” he said
“These old dumps are just scars on the landscape. They’re completely antiquated. It’s hard to justify taking provincial parkland just to expand a local dump.”
But further south, another environmental battle is brewing at one of Ontario’s most beloved natural landmarks and world’s longest freshwater beach.
When Ford announced in May that his government would invest nearly $38 million to build Destination Wasaga—a tourist hub featuring beaches, a revitalized downtown, and historic sites—local residents, including Friends of Nancy Island & Wasaga Beach Park volunteer and long-time piping plover guardian Fiona Ryner, were initially thrilled.
That excitement soon fizzled.
“Suddenly, he added that portions of the beach would be transferred to the town. That was the first we heard of it,” Ryner told The Pointer.
Under the proposal, Nancy Island, a 2.91-hectare section of Wasaga Beach Provincial Park, would be moved out from under the MECP and reclassified under the Historical Parks Act, placing it instead under the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Gaming (MTCG).
“This proposal is part of the government’s 2025 Ontario Budget: A Plan to Protect Ontario commitment to revitalize Nancy Island to boost tourism and drive economic growth in Wasaga Beach, while continuing to protect the area's natural and cultural heritage,” a June 27 Environmental Registry of Ontario (ERO) posting notes.
But environmental advocates and legal experts say the proposal is much more than a simple administrative shuffle, and could open the door to irreversible harm.
Not only do the PCs want to reclassify Nancy Island, but they are also proposing to remove large sections of Wasaga Beach Provincial Park from protected status, amend the Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act (PPCRA), and sell key public lands to the Town of Wasaga Beach.
The areas identified for removal include Beach Areas One and Two, New Wasaga, and Allenwood Beach, representing roughly 60 percent of the park’s Georgian Bay shoreline that contain critical habitat for the endangered piping plover, protected under both federal and provincial law; sensitive dune ecosystems, which help guard against flooding and erosion; and provincially significant wetlands.
It is important to note “most action in ecology happens where water and land interface,” Doyle added.
Ryner explained that Wasaga Beach is not a naturally renewing ocean beach; it depends on 30 fragile dune systems stabilized by marram grass and other native plants. Without active maintenance, the northwest winds off Lake Huron and Georgian Bay would blow the sand away.
Volunteers like Ryner plant grasses and remove invasive species such as phragmites to keep the dunes healthy.
“Any loss of dunes means a permanent loss of sand. This is a relic beach; there’s nothing making new sand,” she said, adding that the sensitive land extends beyond the shoreline, with secondary dunes and forest buffers providing further protection.
Under municipal control, she fears tree clearing, dune destruction, or commercial projects could follow.
“If they develop it, it’s almost inevitable. Why else would they take on the expense of maintaining this land if they didn’t plan to make money from it?”
Ryner points to nearby private developments, condos and a hotel already under construction along the strip, as a preview of what could happen if the town gains control.
“Their stated goal is tourism and economic development, which sounds like building,” she highlighted.
The risk, she stresses, is not only to dunes, but also to the endangered piping plover, a shorebird, that nests at the beach, she has guarded for over 18 years.
Birds Canada, which has overseen conservation efforts at Ontario’s piping plover nesting sites since 2018, considers Wasaga Beach the best habitat for the endangered shorebird.
“The plovers’ habitat lies just east of the bustling strip, fenced off and managed by Ontario Parks staff and volunteers. But not all of the birds’ range is formally protected,” she said.
“Ontario Parks staff have the training and mandate to care for ecological spaces. Towns don’t. If you transfer land out of Ontario Parks, you lose that expertise and oversight. That’s very risky.”
With Bill 5 recently enacted into law, weakening endangered species protections, Ryner fears there may soon be no safety net for the birds if the role of Ontario Parks is removed.
“Birds Canada is involved, but they’re stretched thin. Right now, Ontario Parks staff manage fencing, staffing and volunteers to protect the plovers. Losing that would be devastating.”
She calls it “shameful that the province would give up any parkland anywhere. Parkland is for the public to enjoy, and the idea that they would just hand it over does not sit well at all.”
The Ford government insists the transfer amounts to only 60 hectares, “just three percent” of the 1,814 hectares within the provincial park boundary.
But Ryner and other advocates argue this figure is misleading.
Phil Pothen, land use planning and environmental lawyer with Environmental Defence, points to the vague, shifting language used by officials, including promises to keep the beach “public,” to “protect heritage,” or that only a “small percentage” of land is being transferred.
These terms, he explained, often mask reality.
“Public land” could mean municipally owned but privately leased. “Three percent” includes a vast lakebed that no one associates with the beach. And promises of ecological protection lack binding guarantees.
“From what we understand, the Town went to the Province and asked for this. They argued Ontario Parks doesn’t have enough money and does a terrible job. That’s not true. Ontario Parks is underfunded, but they’re excellent stewards of the environment and provide for tourists. The Town used that against them to push for control,” Ryner added.
Pothen warns this fight goes beyond Wasaga. The government is not only selling off public beachland but also seeking to amend the PPCRA itself.
Remember the 1 percent or 50-hectare rule? Under current law, any removal exceeding this threshold must be approved by the Ontario Legislature.
The Ford government wants to change that.
It is proposing legislative amendments to the Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act (PPCRA) itself, a move that could make it easier to strip protections not only from Wasaga Beach but from any provincial park in the future by avoiding scrutiny and bypassing a legislative vote.
“This is not just about Wasaga Beach. If the law is changed, it will affect every provincial park in Ontario,” Pothen told The Pointer.
“The only logical reason to amend the Act instead of just getting approval from the Legislature is to remove oversight and public accountability.”
In a statement to The Pointer, the MECP said the proposed amendments to the PPCRA are limited strictly to Wasaga Beach Provincial Park, calling any suggestions to the contrary “categorically false.”
Legislative changes are “necessary” to transfer Nancy Island from MECP to the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Gaming, and ultimately to the municipality, as well as to remove Beach Areas 1 and 2, New Wasaga, and Allenwood Beach from the park’s boundary, the ministry claims.
“The government will explore the transfer or sale of Crown-owned lands in these areas to the Town, under the condition that the beach remains public. Making these changes through legislative amendments will allow multiple opportunities for the legislature to debate and vote on the proposal.”
Pothen explained the posting labels the change as an amendment to the PPCRA, but this alone does not clarify the full implications.
“Existing legislation already allows for land sales with legislative approval,” he said, noting the government could proceed through this process without amending the law, raising concerns that the proposed amendment could apply more broadly in the future, beyond Wasaga Beach.
“There is every reason (to) suspect that the government's planned amendments would allow the government to sell off big chunks of Provincial Park lands without getting the approval of Ontario's elected legislature at all. That'd be a recipe for corrupt, Trump-style, fire sales,” Pothen added.
Doyle argues that removing land from such a unique and significant location sets a “dangerous precedent”, especially when private interests could easily find alternative sites outside the park for their tourism development goals.
He emphasizes that there is plenty of land outside provincial parks that is more suitable for development, allowing growth without jeopardizing the integrity of such a “special area”.
“If we keep chipping away bit by bit at provincial parks. You know, all of a sudden we look up and we've actually lost ground on growing protected parks instead of expanding,” Krelove added.
Ryner says provincial parks “are critical to people’s physical health and mental wellbeing. They provide spaces away from the hustle and bustle of daily life.”
“The province should be increasing protected space, not diminishing it,” she concluded.
A petition to save the protected beaches and provincial parks at Wasaga Beach has already gathered nearly 2,700 signatures.