The reformatory lands are a fabulous asset to our city. Beautiful landscaped acres - all at various states of wildness or cultivation provide an excellent recreational space for our citizens. We spend every weekend and at least a few days during the week hiking there.

The original stone walls are stunning works of landscaping and should be restored before they are demolished by neglect and, if they are threatened by the pointless widening of the block of the road between Watson and Victoria, should be re-assembled further south to re-create their original impression. These were a gift to the city originally (see below), and allowing them to be destroyed is a grotesque snub to all those that worked on them.

The beautiful man-made lakes are gorgeous reflecting pools and would be lovely spaces for canoeing (and historically, swimming holes for the Ward's residents). While I understand that the MNR wants to restore their original flow for fish habitat, I'm not sure this is the best use for these lands. Fish habitat in this area will never re-create a fishery like the streams there might have hosted pre-colonial invasion- as there is far too much agricultural run-off, and roadway pollutants to ever give us fish habitat that one would want to fish from. So, for these reasons, leaving the lakes as the great recreational spaces they are now is in the population's best interest.

The main reformatory building is both an architectural and historical gem. The O.R. was, historically, the most progressive institution in our history. It should be adapted and rehabilitated to a community use, and opened for the publics' utility. The out-builings, such as the chapel, etc. have little value nor ability to be re-adapted, so their demolition would open up more space for the public. The main building's history is of immense importance:

"One of the most striking facts about penal history in Ontario is that at the time of the turn of the last century, the majority of those arrested were charged with stealing food. Young men, raised on poor farms, often with little to no skills and frequently illiterate were ejected into the world in their teens to reduce the number of mouths to feed at home. Many inevitably came through the justice system. A recognition of this sad state of affairs led to a new, bold experiment in judicial reform, embodied in the Guelph Reformatory.

In the general election of 1902, Joseph P. Downey became the first conservative to represent South Wellington constituency. In the next election, in 1905, his party came to power. As such Downey was in a good position to influence change in areas of his particular interest, one being the condition of unfortunates, be they criminals or victims of consumption. In 1907, he was appointed chairman of the Special Committee on Prison Labor. The inquiry was to look into ‘the whole question of Prison Labour with a view to arriving at a solution which will prevent for the future, any competition of Prison Labour with Free Labour.’³

W. J. Waines writes about this:

“While the motion suggests that competition with outside labour was… the concern of the committee… Downey and his colleagues considered the effects of the system practiced in the Central Prison in Toronto on the inmates themselves, and recommended a revolutionary change in the prison system. The recommended system was to (be) based on the principles of rehabilitation”; these “were accepted by the government and strongly supported by W.J. Hanna, Provincial Secretary.

The result was the establishment at Guelph of the ‘prison farm’ system and the closing of the Central Prison in Toronto. Under Downey's influence, the first practicable steps toward the reform of reclaimable prisoners to be adopted in Canada were taken.”¹

“The members of the committee visited many reformatories or houses of correction in the United States and studied the situation in Europe, Australia, and New Zealand. Downey and his colleagues, being concerned about the welfare and rehabilitation of inmates, were convinced by the testimony of prison administrators, penologists and by actual observation of reformatories in operation, that prisoners must be employed and that their labour must be productive if incarceration was to be more than a form of punishment (…)

‘Experience appears to have been that while labor is absolutely essential as a means of reformation, unproductive labor has a harmful effect... More, the effect was to degrade, to discourage and brutalize the prisoner, and widen still further the breach that separated him from orderly society.’(…) The most effective system in institutions (…) would combine a number of features such as employment in the open air, the production of goods for state-supported institutions, corrective and reformative effort and training and education. Employment in the open air, especially farm work, is productive, remunerative and offers the least competition to free labour. It is ‘healthful, uplifting and educational’ and can be adapted to the capacity of the prisoner.”¹

“On the basis of the investigation of other institutions the committee were convinced that prisons should not be solely for punitive purposes but that ‘it is the duty of the State to employ all reasonable methods during the period of detention to improve the character of the well disposed prisoner and, if possible, revive or create in him a proper appreciation of his duties and responsibilities.’ The reformatory type institution should include programmes and facilities for education and training--basic education, trades training and, the committee proposed, calisthenics and military exercises ‘as essential to the physical and moral improvement of the inmates of a reformatory.’”¹

“The committee recommended that this new type of institution be established ‘within a reasonable distance from the city of Toronto’ and should be known as ‘the Provincial Reformatory of Ontario.’ Guelph was chosen by the government as the siteof the Ontario Reformatory.’”1

“In the view of the committee imprisonment should be regarded as a means of reformation rather than solely as a means of punishment. They believed that detention for short periods, especially for first offenders, should be in an environment where rehabilitation is the principal objective of the system. Their recommendations were all directed to this end. Hence, they emphasized the importance of productive employment in a minimum security situation. Thus a ‘prison farm’ on which all farm operations and many kinds of industrial activities would be carried on was proposed. Output of useful produce would combine with teaching to train the prisoners. A market for their produce was to be found in the public institutions. The committee was of the opinion that probation, indeterminate sentence and parole are at the heart of a reformatory system. They maintained that only first offenders should be committed to such institutions regardless of the length of the sentence.”⁴

The inquiry’s findings ultimately led to the opening of the Provincial Reformatory of Ontario on April 11th, 1911.

The Jermalism blog describes the new site:

“The architectural design and surrounding landscape reflected the Reformatory purpose with abundant natural light inside the building, and scenic outdoor spaces featuring gardens and ponds, dry stone fences and areas for productive activities. Originally there was no perimeter fencing. The cell blocks were made up of three floors with 13 cells and a dormitory on each floor. Well behaved general population inmates were housed in the dormitories in groups of 20-22. Prisoners labelled criminally insane were housed in a specific block known as the Ontario Hospital. Guards utilized over a mile of tunnel systems to access various areas within the building. In 1921, a Superintendent's residence was built on the grounds and over time a church, hospital, and large mess hall were also constructed. The mess hall accommodated waves of 250 inmates at a time.

Inmates were assessed upon admission and assigned a prison job. The strongest amongst them were assigned to the bull gang, the workhorses of manual labour. The prisoners built and maintained a large farm, greenhouse, orchard, abattoir, cannery, and many work shops including tailor and machine shops, and woolen mill.

Over the years, prisoners produced license plates, picnic tables, clothing, socks, and windows which were installed in many of the houses in Guelph. They also produced enough baked goods to supply all of the psychiatric institutions in Ontario. The work model of the Reformatory was so successful, it turned a profit of $10,000 to $75,000 per annum.

After the First World War, the reformatory served as the Speedwell Convalescence Hospital for wounded soldiers, housing over 900 veterans in 1919, some in a special tuberculosis ward.

Ontario Reformatory re-opened in 1921.”²

One of the most striking features of the site was the landscaped grounds. Prior to the founding of the site, Clythe Creek meandered through a marshy wetland. According to The Mercury:

“The idea for the large twin ponds on the site may have been to drain the wetland and control frequent flooding from Clythe Creek but it didn’t require the level of work and ornamental landscaping that went into the project.

‘I think the idea was to build a nice park,’ (former assistant superintendent Karl) Grottenthaler said. ‘It was their mission. A gift to the city of Guelph.’

The marshy flood land along York Road was unsuitable for agriculture or livestock and presented a challenge for the crews assigned to dig out the ponds.

‘You couldn’t use tractors and wagons because it was too wet… you had to use wheelbarrows.’

The earth was moved one wheelbarrow at a time and used to build up the grounds around the ponds including the lands where the ball diamonds of The Royal City Jaycees Bicentennial Park now stand.

‘The bull gang had 50 wheelbarrows,’ Grottenthaler said. ‘They used boards to go over the mud and they just kept hauling it out. It would have taken at least two or three years with a bull gang of about 60 inmates.’

Flooding the ponds marked the end of a decade-long landscaping project that transformed the lands along York Road into pristine parkland.

By the late 1920s, the prison and the park were an architectural and landscaping showcase drawing people from all over to view the botanical gardens and ornamental landscape. The grand design was influenced by the prison’s collaboration with horticultural experts from the Ontario Agricultural College.

The public was encouraged to use the parklands for picnics and other leisure activities during daylight hours.”⁵

1. Waines, W. J. “THE ONTARIO REFORMATORY, GUELPH – Part 1: JOSEPH P. DOWNEY (1) AND PRISON REFORM - PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH THE ONTARIO REFORMATORY.” Guelph Historical Society Publications VOL. XVI, No.1. 1975 - 6.

2. Ix, Jerm & Ninja. Abandonment Issues: Ontario Reformatory / Guelph Correctional Centre. Nov. 27, 2013. Blog. .

3. Journals of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario. Feb 26. 1907. < https://archive.org/stream/journalsoflegisl41ontauoft/journalsoflegisl41ontauoft_djvu.txt>

4. Waines, W. J. “THE ONTARIO REFORMATORY, GUELPH – Part 2: ACHIEVEMENT OF AN OBJECTIVE: A PRISON DEDICATED TO REHABILITATION.” Guelph Historical Society Publications VOL. XVI, No.2. 1975 - 6.

5. “A gift to the city: Prison labour created much-loved ponds off York Road.” The Guelph Mercury. Sep. 24, 2011. < https://www.guelphmercury.com/news-story/2728157-a-gift-to-the-city-prison-labour-created-much-loved-ponds-off-york-road/>."

(from https://cms.driftscape.com/report.php?ListType=vNA_FeaturesPOI&ID=211484&ORG_ID=1001)