The Protecting Ontario by Upholding Honesty and Integrity Act, 2026 inserts a new provision into the Legislative Assembly Act requiring every person elected as a Member of Provincial Parliament (MPP) to take and subscribe a specified oath or affirmation before the Clerk before they may sit or vote in the Assembly for the first time.
The oath sets out specific commitments — including refusing payments or rewards for biased or corrupt conduct, not making statements the member knows to be false, acting impartially and in the public interest, and not exploiting office for personal gain — and may be taken in English or French. The requirement applies only to members elected on or after the polling day of the next general election held after the Act comes into force.
The bill formalizes ethical expectations into statutory text and creates a procedural gate (no seat until compliance), but it does not create penalties or detailed enforcement mechanisms for breaches, raising questions about practical effect and implementation.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds section 24.1 to the Legislative Assembly Act with a prescribed oath/affirmation text and requires every newly elected MPP to take and subscribe it before the Clerk before their first sitting and vote. It makes taking the oath a precondition to taking a seat in the Assembly and allows the oath in English or French.
Who It Affects
Directly affects MPPs elected at the next general election and legislative officers who administer oaths (the Clerk and Clerk’s office). Indirectly affects political parties, House leaders, the Integrity Commissioner and anyone monitoring legislative conduct or candidate vetting.
Why It Matters
By moving specific behavioural commitments into statutory oath language and attaching a procedural consequence (no seat until compliance), the bill raises the stakes of initial induction. At the same time it leaves enforcement and definitions vague, so the practical change will depend on how the Assembly and related institutions use the new text.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill amends the Legislative Assembly Act to insert a new subsection that prescribes a full oath or affirmation of office for people elected as MPPs. The oath is presented in the bill and goes beyond a generic pledge of allegiance: it requires newly elected members to swear (or affirm) that they will refuse payments or rewards tied to biased or corrupt exercise of office, act with fairness and integrity, avoid knowingly making false statements, represent constituents according to their judgment, and not use their position for personal gain.
The text also includes the traditional “So help me God” ending as optional for affirmations.
Practically, the bill makes the Clerk the official who receives and records the oath or affirmation; the oath must be taken and subscribed before the Clerk and may be done in either official language. The Act ties seating to compliance: a member is explicitly not entitled to take their seat unless they have complied with the oath requirement.
That creates a procedural gate at the first sitting and voting opportunity for any qualifying new MPP.The bill is deliberately forward-looking: the oath requirement applies only to people elected on or after the polling day of the next general election held after the Act comes into force. In other words, current incumbents keep their status without being required to re-swear.
The Act itself comes into force on Royal Assent and gives the provision a clear starting point tied to the timing of the next general election.Although the oath formalizes a set of ethical commitments in statutory form and imposes a concrete procedural consequence for non-compliance, the bill does not create a separate enforcement regime, specify penalties, or define key terms used in the oath. How the Assembly, the Clerk, and external oversight bodies interpret and operationalize the promise will determine whether this is primarily symbolic or a meaningful change to legislative accountability and pre-seating procedure.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill inserts a new section (s.24.1) into the Legislative Assembly Act that prescribes an explicit oath or affirmation for newly elected MPPs and reproduces the full text in the statute.
The oath requires MPPs to swear they have not and will not accept any payment, reward or promise of payment for exercising office in a biased, corrupt or improper manner, and that they will not make statements they know to be false.
The oath must be taken and subscribed before the Clerk of the Assembly and may be given in English or French; the traditional religious phrase is optional for affirmations.
A member is not entitled to take their seat or to sit and vote in the Assembly for the first time unless they have complied with the oath/affirmation requirement.
The requirement applies only to members elected on or after the polling day of the next general election held after the Act comes into force; the Act itself comes into force on Royal Assent.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Prescribed oath or affirmation — full text and formalities
This subsection supplies the exact wording MPPs must swear or affirm and requires the oath to be taken before the Clerk. It is bilingual in practice (English or French) and requires the member to “take and subscribe” the oath, which creates a signed record. The text is notable for specific commitments (no payments for biased conduct, not knowingly making false statements, not exploiting office for personal gain) rather than a generic pledge of service; that specificity shapes both expectations and later interpretive questions about what constitutes a breach.
Seat entitlement tied to compliance
This short clause makes taking the oath a procedural precondition: a member who has not complied with subsection (1) is not entitled to take their seat. That gives the Clerk and House authorities a clear basis to prevent a newly elected MPP from sitting or voting until the oath is completed, transforming the oath into an operational gate rather than a mere ceremonial formality.
Forward-looking application to future elections
This subsection limits the oath requirement to persons elected on or after the polling day of the next general election held after the Act comes into force. The provision is explicitly non-retroactive: sitting members at the time the Act receives Royal Assent will not be required to re-take the new statutory text unless re-elected after the specified polling day. That timing choice reduces immediate disruption but creates a two-tier cohort of MPPs with different induction requirements.
Commencement and short title
Section 2 makes the Act come into force on Royal Assent, which triggers the clock for the application rule in s.24.1(3). Section 3 supplies the Act’s short title. The separation of commencement and application timing means the textual oath becomes law immediately, but its practical effect on seating only applies once the next general election polling day occurs, as specified in the Act.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Ontario voters and constituents — they receive a statutory, public-facing promise from newly elected representatives that specifies commitments on honesty, avoiding corruption, and representing constituents; that can supply a clearer baseline for expectations and public critique.
- Legislative Assembly institutional officials (Clerk and House administration) — the bill provides a clear statutory duty and a procedural mechanism to administer induction and to deny seating until the oath is completed, reducing ambiguity about who is authorized to receive the oath and when.
- Opposition parties and ethics watchdogs — the textual and signed nature of the oath gives external monitors a concrete standard to cite when alleging misconduct or making public accountability claims, even in the absence of new penalties.
Who Bears the Cost
- Newly elected MPPs — they must accept and record a statutory pledge with specific commitments that increase reputational and political risk, and may elevate pressure to resign or recant in cases of alleged breaches.
- Clerk’s office and legislative staff — they must administer, record and retain oath documents for every qualifying MPP and manage situations where a member refuses or delays taking the oath, adding administrative burden and potential procedural disputes.
- Political parties and candidate vetting teams — parties will face stronger incentives to screen candidates for past conduct that could conflict with the oath’s commitments, and may absorb political fallout if a member is alleged to have violated the oath.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between symbolic accountability and enforceable duty: the bill binds new MPPs to a detailed pledge and blocks seating until it is taken, which signals higher ethical expectations, but it provides no clear enforcement pathway or precise definitions, trading a stronger public standard for ambiguity that invites political weaponization and uncertain remedial options.
The bill turns an ethical expectation into statutory text and attaches a concrete procedural consequence, but it leaves the most important operational questions unanswered. There are no sanctions in the Act for breaking the oath, no referral mechanism to an enforcement body, and no express interaction with existing conflict-of-interest or criminal provisions; that leaves a gap between promise and remedy.
In practice, allegations of oath violations would rely on existing institutions (ethics commissioner, police, parliamentary discipline) to act, which risks inconsistent outcomes and politicized enforcement.
Several terms in the oath are legally and practically indeterminate: “payment, reward or promise of any payment or reward,” “biased, corrupt or improper manner,” and the duty not to “make statements that I know to be false.” Those phrases require interpretation if they are to carry consequence. The standard “that I know to be false” imports a mens rea element that is hard to prove and could chill robust political debate if political actors use the oath as a tool to demand retractions or to disqualify speech.
Finally, the Act’s forward-looking application creates two classes of MPPs — incumbents unaffected, newcomers bound — which may have equity and political optics implications within party caucuses and the Assembly’s internal governance.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.