This bill changes rules about Ontario Members of Provincial Parliament (MPPs) pensions and salaries. It repeals a cap on Assembly members’ salaries from 2009. The bill creates a new pension plan for MPPs and changes how their pensions are managed. It also allows for allowances to certain members who are not eligible for pension plans. The bill comes into effect on January 1, 2026, with some parts starting earlier.
If you are an Ontario resident, these changes could affect public spending and government expenses. The bill might lead to higher costs because it introduces a new pension plan and allows for allowances to some members. This means the government may need more money to support these pensions and allowances, which could impact taxes or other public programs.
The bill also removes restrictions on how much Assembly members’ salaries can increase, which could result in higher salaries for some leaders. These salary increases could also raise government costs.
The bill does not include a detailed fiscal note with exact costs. However, because the government is establishing new pension plans and allowances, the related expenses are expected to be funded from the Consolidated Revenue Fund (the government’s main account). The cost of pensions and allowances depends on how many members are affected and how long they receive benefits. Data on exact costs is unavailable.
Supporters of the bill argue that updating pension rules is fair and helps retain good leaders. They say letting salaries increase for leaders like the Government House Leader reflects their responsibilities. Creating a new pension plan aims to improve benefits for future leaders. Proponents believe these changes ensure the system is modern and competitive.
Critics argue that these changes could increase government spending significantly. Allowing salary increases and new pension plans might lead to higher taxes or cuts in other services for the public. They worry that increased pension costs may burden taxpayers and that benefits should be more tightly controlled to prevent future costs from rising too much. Some opponents may see this as a benefit to politicians that the public did not vote on.