The Ontario Sunshine List History

The Ontario Sunshine List was established in 1996 under the Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act, also known as the PSSD Act. Its purpose was to compel public sector employers in Ontario to make public the names, job titles, and compensation (salary plus taxable benefits) of employees earning more than $100,000 per year. This was intended as a transparency measure, so taxpayers could see how public funds are being used and who is being paid what in publicly funded roles.

When the very first Sunshine List was released in 1997, it contained just a few thousand names—reports suggest fewer than 4,000 employees qualified that year. Over time, public sector wages rose, more types of public organizations came under the disclosure requirements, and more employees moved into roles whose compensation (including benefits) crossed the $100,000 threshold.

One major point of debate has been that the $100,000 threshold has never been adjusted for inflation. While what that amount meant in 1996 in terms of purchasing power was high, today it represents something quite different. According to AMAPCEO, adjusting the 1996 threshold to 2021 dollars (or more recent years) suggests that the equivalent would be around $157,663 or more. That means many more people now appear on the list—not always because they hold top leadership roles, but because salary scales across public sector roles have risen, often due to union agreements and standard yearly increases.

The effect of inflation on the list can be dramatic. For example, data shows that the Canadian Consumer Price Index (CPI) has increased significantly since 1996—by about 81% by 2024. Under such inflation, a fixed $100,000 threshold excludes many mid‐level public servants who are earning amounts that in real terms match or exceed what would’ve been high pay in the past. Some analysis suggests that if the threshold were inflation‐adjusted, the Sunshine List would be much smaller—potentially cutting down the number of disclosed records by over 90% in certain years.

As the number of names on the List has grown, so have the discussions around what it means to be on the List. What once was a clear visibility tool for only senior managers or high‐profile public officials has in many cases expanded to include people in middle management, technical or specialized roles, experienced frontline workers, and roles that include substantial benefit components. Critics argue this dilutes the original purpose: to showcase the “top earners.” Supporters, however, say that increased inclusion is itself informative, revealing how wages at many public service levels have shifted over the decades.

In addition to inflation, there have been concerns about fairness, privacy, and context. For example, simply publishing a name and a salary doesn’t show workload, responsibilities, overtime, or sector differences. Some public roles hold substantial overtime or benefit components that push employees above the threshold. Others argue for anonymizing non‐executive employees or providing more detailed disclosure (e.g. splitting base salary vs benefits) to avoid misleading comparisons.

Legal and union groups (such as AMAPCEO) have regularly pushed for reform: indexing the threshold to inflation, clarifying what counts toward compensation, and considering exemptions or adjusting which roles are individually named. These conversations highlight that the legislation, while still in force, may not fully reflect cost‐of‐living changes or modern salary structures in the public sector.

Nearly 30 years on, the Sunshine List remains a key piece of Ontario’s transparency framework. Each annual release continues to draw public and media attention. Whether for accountability, research, union negotiation, or simply curiosity, the List serves multiple roles. While the debate continues about whether $100,000 still marks a meaningful boundary, one thing is clear: the Sunshine List has shown how compensation has evolved in Ontario’s public service—and it still sparks important conversations about fairness, value, and government accountability.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *