Summary#
Bill 116, the Safety and Accountability in Ontario Corrections Act, 2026, would amend the Ministry of Correctional Services Act and the Correctional Services and Reintegration Act, 2018. Its stated goal is to support safety and accountability in Ontario corrections; that is a goal, not a guaranteed result. The parent Acts were not supplied, so I could not verify what protections or powers already exist under current law.
- The Minister must develop a plan, with timelines, to bring the schedules of the Correctional Services Transformation Act, 2018 into force, and table it in the Legislature.
- The bill would protect people or entities who make certain good-faith disclosures to an official designated by regulation, if they ask for confidentiality and receive an assurance of it. Reprisals would be prohibited, with routes to seek remedies and a new offence.
- The Inspector General could request or compel information from correctional managers about employee requests, workplace culture and safety, and from named ministers and other prescribed cabinet members about responses to safety-related communications.
- The Inspector General could recommend specified changes to the Minister. The Minister must table a summary of recommendations within three months of receiving them.
- The Inspector General could require the Ministry to publish information about how many people reside at residential correctional institutions, and to update it at least every two months.
What it means for you#
- Correctional services employees and other potential whistle-blowers: The protections would apply only to qualifying disclosures to the prescribed official about an alleged or intended breach of an Act prescribed by regulation, and only if the person receives an assurance of confidentiality. A person who believes they faced a reprisal could use a qualifying arbitration process or sue in the Superior Court of Justice. A court or arbitrator could order reinstatement or compensation. The person or entity accused would have to prove they did not take a reprisal.
- Correctional managers and specified ministers: The Inspector General could request or compel information on the matters listed in the bill. The bill does not require them to adopt the Inspector General’s recommendations.
- People residing at residential correctional institutions: The Inspector General could require the Ministry to publish numbers of residents. The bill does not require publication of names.
- The Minister and Ministry: The Minister must prepare and table the transformation plan. If the Inspector General makes recommendations, the Minister must table a summary within three months.
- General public: The bill does not itself set a date for most of its provisions to start. The transformation-plan section would start on Royal Assent; the other provisions would start on a date set by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.
Money#
No cost information is in the available material.
- The bill requires the Minister to prepare and table a plan, and the Ministry may have to provide information for publication. The bill gives no cost estimate or staffing figures.
- The bill does not appropriate a stated amount of money. It allows remedies that can include compensation for a whistle-blower and creates an offence with a fine, but the fine amount is to be set by regulation.
What is unclear#
- Which officials and Acts will be prescribed for the whistle-blower rules, and what amount the fine will be.
- What rules and procedures will govern whistle-blower investigations, including procedures for witnesses. The bill leaves these to regulations.
- How a person would make a disclosure, how quickly it would be handled, and what steps are available if confidentiality is not assured.
- What information about resident numbers would be published, beyond the general requirement to provide numbers.
- When provisions other than the transformation-plan requirement would start, and what schedules the plan will address in practice.
- How these new provisions would interact with protections, powers or processes already in the amended Acts. The Acts were not supplied for comparison.
Case for#
- A possible argument for the bill is that employees who report alleged legal breaches may be less exposed to retaliation if the law bars reprisals and offers routes to seek remedies.
- The Inspector General’s ability to compel information could help examine how correctional management and ministers respond to employee concerns about safety.
- Recommendations and public reporting on resident numbers could make some information about corrections more visible to the Legislature and public.
- A plan with timelines could give the Legislature a clearer account of how the schedules of the 2018 transformation Act are to be brought into force.
Case against#
- The protections depend on regulations defining the official and Acts covered, and on an assurance of confidentiality. Until those details are set, the practical reach of the protections is uncertain.
- The bill gives the Inspector General broad discretion to seek information and make recommendations, but does not require the Minister to act on recommendations.
- The bill does not set a start date for most provisions or state the resources needed to carry them out.
- The new offence’s fine amount and investigation procedures are left to future regulations, so the consequences and process are not yet fully defined.