Summary#

Bill 6, the Correctional Services Transformation Act, 2018, was enacted as Chapter 6 of the Statutes of Ontario, 2018. It creates the Correctional Services and Reintegration Act, 2018 and the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services Act, 2018, and repeals the Ministry of Correctional Services Act. Its stated goal is to support public safety through humane custody, rehabilitation and reintegration.

• The Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services would run the correctional system, with required duties including providing health care, programs and services, and publishing policies and yearly data.
• Superintendents would have specific duties for inmates’ living conditions, assessments, case plans and release assistance. The new Act sets minimum standards for matters including food, hygiene, health care, visits and recreation.
• Segregation—custody with highly restricted movement and association for 22 hours or more a day—would be barred for certain inmates and generally limited to 15 consecutive days and 60 days in a year. An Independent Review Panel could authorize more than 60 days. Some limits have exceptions for correctional institutions prescribed by regulation; scheduled amendments would remove several of those exceptions 10 years after Royal Assent, or earlier by proclamation.
• The Act creates an Inspector General of Correctional Services, who must inspect and investigate compliance and may direct the Minister to fix non-compliance. It also requires community advisory boards at correctional institutions and a First Nations, Inuit and Métis Advisory Committee.
• The Minister could contract for correctional services, but not for a private, for-profit entity to operate a correctional institution.

What it means for you#

• Inmates: The Act would set out rights and minimum standards for daily conditions, health care, communication, programs and release assistance. Superintendents must assess newly admitted inmates and prepare case management plans. The Act also sets rules for searches, discipline, force and segregation.
• First Nations, Inuit and Métis inmates and people under community supervision: The Minister and employees must consider systemic and individual circumstances, and consider unique needs when making decisions that limit liberty. Superintendents must make Elders, Spiritual Advisors, traditional healing services and supports available.
• Correctional staff and contractors: Staff must follow a prescribed code of conduct. Inspectors and investigators would have powers to inspect records and require responses to inquiries. Contractors providing correctional services could be subject to Ombudsman evidence-gathering powers.
• Taxpayers and municipalities: The Ministry would have to provide services and staff for the duties and oversight bodies in the Act. A municipality would have to pay a set daily rate if one of its police services boards uses a designated correctional institution as a lock-up.
• The public: The Act requires public access to Ministry policies and annual correctional data. It does not create a right for the public to enter institutions; visitors remain subject to approval and security rules.

Money#

No publicly available information on the estimated cost of implementing the Acts.

• The Ministry would have duties to provide health care teams, programs, release assistance and oversight. The text gives no staffing numbers or cost estimates.
• Municipalities would pay a daily rate set by the Minister for people held in a designated lock-up; no rate is specified in the bill.
• The Minister may pay a compassionate allowance in specified cases. The bill provides no estimate of likely payments.

What is unclear#

• The supplied material says the bill was enacted, but the Acts’ schedules take effect on dates set by proclamation. No publicly available information on when each schedule took effect.
• Many operating details depend on regulations, including security classification rules, the powers of community advisory boards, and the process for restrictive-confinement reviews.
• The Act allows some segregation limits to be set aside for prescribed institutions. Which institutions would be prescribed, and for how long, is not specified in the bill.
• The parent Ministry of Correctional Services Act was not supplied, so I could not verify how the new Act’s rules compare with the full previous law.

Case for#

• A possible argument for the bill is that clear minimum standards and limits on segregation could protect inmates’ health and dignity while setting rules for staff.
• An Inspector General with inspection powers and the ability to direct the Minister to address non-compliance could strengthen oversight.
• Required assessments, case plans, programs and release assistance could support rehabilitation and reintegration, which the Act identifies as part of its public-safety goal.
• Required consideration of First Nations, Inuit and Métis inmates’ circumstances, along with access to Elders and traditional healing, could make correctional decisions more responsive to their needs.

Case against#

• Many important rules are left to future regulations, so the bill alone does not show exactly how key rights, reviews and oversight would work in practice.
• The prescribed-institution exceptions could weaken limits on segregation. The Act does not itself say which institutions would qualify.
• The bill creates duties and oversight structures but gives no cost estimate or staffing plan. It is unclear whether the resources would be sufficient to carry them out.
• The Minister and superintendents retain broad powers over matters such as contracts, placements, searches and restrictions during lockdowns. A possible trade-off is that detailed statutory rules may still leave important decisions to officials.