Opinion
Peel residents are entitled to ask difficult questions about public-sector compensation, particularly when senior executive earnings change dramatically while households continue absorbing higher property taxes.
The issue is not whether public servants should be paid fairly. Nor is it whether every tax increase is unjustified. The issue is whether taxpayers receive a clear explanation of how senior compensation is determined, who approves it and what public value justifies it.
The latest salary disclosures raise questions that deserve answers.
Consider Peel Region's chief administrative officer, Gary Kent. Ontario's public-sector salary disclosure lists Kent's 2024 salary at $374,101.01. In 2025, that figure increased to $581,808.37. That's an increase of $207,707.36, or 55.52 per cent in one year.
Add $18,280.48 in taxable benefits, and his disclosed 2025 salary and benefits total $600,088.85.
Those numbers demand an explanation. There is an important distinction: the disclosure reports earnings paid during a calendar year. It does not necessarily represent an equivalent increase in annual base salary. It also does not identify the individual components responsible for the change.
Kent became Peel's CAO effective April 28, 2023, having already served as Peel's chief financial officer and commissioner of corporate services. His earlier compensation figures therefore need to be considered in the context of his appointment and the period covered. That does not make 2024 or 2025 a partial year in the CAO role. Nor does it answer the central question: why did the amount reported for 2025 increase by more than $207,000?
Was the difference attributable to salary adjustments, retroactive payments, accrued entitlements or other compensation? The published figure alone does not establish the answer. Peel Region should provide a documented breakdown, identifying the amounts, their purposes and the approvals behind them.
Regional Chair Nando Iannicca's compensation also warrants examination. His disclosed salary increased from $218,544.02 in 2023 to $259,237.82 in 2024, an increase of $40,693.80, or 18.62 per cent. In 2025, it rose to $278,203.48, an additional $18,965.66, or 7.32 per cent. With taxable benefits of $15,424.72, his disclosed 2025 salary and benefits totalled $293,628.20.
There is relevant context. Regional council approved compensation in lieu of OMERS pension contributions on February 22, 2024, an arrangement relevant to the chair's 2024 compensation. Iannicca declared a conflict and did not vote on that by-law. Peel's remuneration policy provides for a payment in lieu for a chair receiving an OMERS pension. The policy alone does not identify the amount of any such payment included in his disclosed earnings. That distinction matters. It would be inaccurate to characterize every dollar of the reported increase as a conventional salary raise without examining the compensation arrangement and its financial components.
But the arrangement should be documented clearly enough for residents to understand its cost and implications. Transparency means explaining the numbers, not simply publishing them.
The tax burden provides the context
Meanwhile, Peel residents have faced successive increases in the region's contribution to their overall property tax bills. The average overall property-tax increases attributable to the approved regional budgets were:
These figures represent the average regional contribution to the overall property tax bill. They are not increases in the regional levy alone, nor do they represent the combined increases imposed by all taxing authorities. Individual property tax bills can differ, and local municipal increases and separate water and wastewater charges must also be considered.
The distinction is important. But the broader concern remains: residents are repeatedly being asked to absorb higher costs, and they have every right to examine how the regional government manages public money.
The compensation figures do not establish that executive pay caused property tax increases. They do not, by themselves, prove mismanagement or financial misconduct. They do, however, raise legitimate questions about compensation policy, executive oversight and the standards applied to spending public money.
Publishing numbers is not accountability
Peel Region should answer several straightforward questions. Who approved the compensation arrangements affecting these reported earnings? What portions of the disclosed amounts represent base salary, retroactive payments, pension-related compensation or other entitlements? Were the payments consistent with approved employment agreements and council policies? What performance measures are used to assess senior executive leadership? And what measurable improvements have residents received in return for the compensation paid?
These are reasonable questions, not accusations. Council approves regional budgets and has a responsibility to explain the financial decisions made on behalf of taxpayers. That responsibility includes ensuring residents can understand senior compensation arrangements without having to interpret complicated financial disclosures themselves.
Public-sector leadership comes with significant responsibilities. Competitive compensation may be necessary to attract and retain qualified executives. But public employment also comes with a higher obligation to explain how public money is spent.
A salary disclosure tells residents how much was reported. It does not necessarily tell them why it was paid, how it was authorized or whether the expenditure delivered value. That is the missing part of the accountability equation.
Peel residents should not have to accept unexplained compensation changes as an ordinary feature of government administration.
