Hansard — Monday, March 30, 2026 Morning, Issue No. 142

First, I will start with in the gallery. I would like to recognize we have the president of the B.C. Federation of Labour, Sussanne Skidmore, here with us, as well as the president for Victoria Labour Council, Kirk Mercer, who is also the CUPE skilled-trades spokesperson.

As well, today we’ll be having joining us Kale Anguish, marine government representative for Indigenous outreach with IBEW 230; Shane Scott, north Island construction representative; Rob Mangat, dispatcher; Cory McGregor, training coordinator; Cassidy Venoit, apprentice coordinator; Russell Alexander and Jake Kiernan, membership development; Raj Takhar, president; Jackie Oliver, vice-president; Adrien Livingston, treasurer; Al Sotkowy, Victoria chair; Dave Lambert, Nanaimo chair; Shane Varney, Courtenay and Campbell River chair; Jeremey Switzer, marine and veterans committee chair; Lexi Redman, youth chair; Jack Sandor, youth guest; as well as Phil Venoit, the business manager and financial secretary; Lauren Scott-Moncrieff, the recording secretary; and Jim Watson, a retired IBEW international trainer.

[10:05 a.m.]

We will also have from our plumbers and pipefitters union, Stefan Plusa, Kevin Pivarnyik; and Jim Noon, their business manager and financial agent; as well as from our sheet metal worker union here, Jason Pedersen. He’s the business manager, financial agent and secretary as well.

Will the House make them feel welcome.

Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

Skilled Trades and
Construction and Skilled Trades Month

Darlene Rotchford: I rise today to recognize April as Construction and Skilled Trades Month here in British Columbia. This year’s theme, “Working to build B.C.,” speaks not only to the physical infrastructure rising across our province but also the people behind it — the skilled-trades professionals, construction workers, contractors, businesses and post-secondaries whose dedication quite literally builds our futures.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Their work is not always in the spotlight, but it is always essential.

Across British Columbia, more than 28,000 businesses and over 265,000 workers contribute to the strength and resilience of our communities. From roads and bridges to schools, hospitals and homes, their work shapes the place where we live, work, raise our families and the very building we’re in. Whether in large urban centres or small rural communities, their contributions are visible in every corner of our province.

This month SkilledTradesBC, in collaboration with industry partners, is shining a spotlight on the many opportunities within skilled trades. These include career paths in carpentry, electrical work, plumbing, welding and many others — careers that are not only in high demand but also offer meaningful, well-paid and rewarding pathways for people at all stages of life.

At the same time, there is a strong and necessary focus on addressing labour shortages in the construction sector and encouraging more people to consider a future in the trades. This includes outreach to youth, women and underrepresented groups, ensuring that these opportunities are inclusive and accessible to all British Columbians. When we open doors wider, we strengthen our workforce and our communities at the same time.

We’re also seeing increased engagement in schools, training centres and communities, where individuals can learn more about apprenticeship pathways and hands-on training opportunities. These pathways are critical. They allow people to earn while they learn, to gain real-world experience and to build careers that are both stable and fulfilling. For many, the trades are not just a job; they are a lifelong profession and a source of pride.

This work is closely aligned with our government’s Look West strategy and economic vision on strengthening British Columbia’s position as Canada’s gateway to the Asia-Pacific region, while building a resilient, self-efficient economy right here at home.

At the heart of this strategy is a recognition that we cannot grow our economy or deliver major projects without a strong, highly skilled workforce. Whether it’s building the housing people need, extending our transportation networks, modernizing infrastructure or supporting crucial industries like shipbuilding and clean energy, the success of our Look West strategy depends on the people in the skilled trades. They are the ones turning plans into reality. They are the ones ensuring that British Columbia remains competitive, innovative and ready to meet the demands of a changing global economy.

That’s why our government committed to a landmark investment of $241 million over three years to strengthen and modernize British Columbia’s trade-training system. This investment will assess training to reduce barriers to entry and ensure that our workforce is equipped with the skills they need for the jobs of today and the opportunities of tomorrow. It is an investment not only in individuals but in the long-term success of our province.

The importance of skilled trades cannot be overstated. They are a cornerstone of British Columbia’s economy, again supporting housing development, advancing that critical infrastructure and sustaining key industries such as shipbuilding. In my riding of Esquimalt, it is especially evident.

Victoria and the surrounding region have a long and proud history of skilled-trades and labour organizations. The Victoria Labour Council, which was actually established in 1887, stands as one of the oldest in the country. Organizations such as IBEW Local 230, UA Local 324, the carpenters and joiners Local 1598 and some of the sheet metal workers Local 276 — just to name some — represent generations of workers who have helped shape our communities and this province since the turn of time.

While the tools and technologies have evolved over time, the values at the heart of these professions have remained constant. Skilled craftsmanship, pride and a deep commitment to the job they are doing right — these are the values that continue to define trades today.

[10:10 a.m.]

Indeed, the very building we stand in today is a testament to the work of skilled tradespeople, past and present, whose efforts continue to serve British Columbians every single day. It is a reminder that their legacy is not only one built on infrastructure but into the foundation of our society.

So today, and throughout the month of April, I invite all members of this House to join me in recognizing and celebrating the individuals who build our homes, our infrastructure and our communities.

To every construction worker, to every skilled-trade worker, to every trades professional, contractor, apprentice and business owner across British Columbia: thank you. Thank you for your hard work, your expertise and your commitment to excellence. And thank you for continuing to build a stronger, more resilient province for our future generations.

Traditional Chinese Medicine
and Regulatory Changes

Teresa Wat: We are now only two days away from April 1, the day on which the website of the College of Complementary Health Professionals of British Columbia states, “Prescribing herbal formulas will be removed as a restricted activity,” and then asks: “Does it mean unregulated persons can prescribe herbal formulas?” The answer given is yes.

In plain terms, the public is being told that prescribing traditional Chinese medicine herbal formulas would no longer be a restricted activity. This is deeply concerning. This situation highlights a broader pattern that British Columbians have seen too often — decisions that lack clarity, disregard front-line expertise and create confusion for the public. It defies common sense to suggest that unregulated individuals could prescribe herbal formulas. This is not a minor or technical issue. It goes directly to patient safety, professional standards and public confidence in our health care system.

Equally troubling is the fact that the traditional Chinese medicine community has been raising concerns as early as February 2024. These are trained professionals working on the front lines, yet their voices were not meaningfully addressed for an extended period.

Two months ago, in a media interview, the minister stated: “I understand there has been some misunderstanding and confusion about the way the new ordinance is laid out, which is why it’s very important we do the work together with the college and with practitioners to understand what changes might be needed in order to provide clarity.”

But if concerns were raised as early as February 2024, why did it take a public rally for these issues to receive serious attention? Why are we only now hearing about the need for clarity? The concerns expressed by the traditional Chinese medicine community were not hypothetical. They were based on the wording published by the college itself. So it is fair to ask: where does the responsibility for this confusion lie?

Even now conflicting messages persist. On the day of the traditional Chinese medicine rally, when the petition was delivered to the Premier’s office, the minister stated publicly that individuals without appropriate training are not able to prescribe Chinese herbal formulas. However, the college’s website continues to state, clearly and unequivocally, that prescribing herbal formulas will no longer be a restricted activity and that unregulated persons can do so. Only afterwards does it note that the ministry has been directed to make regulatory changes to clarify that such activities should remain restricted to licensed practitioners.

[10:15 a.m.]

April 1 is only two days away, and the public is being told that these regulatory changes are still in progress. What then is the public supposed to believe? If an unregulated individual were to prescribe traditional Chinese medicine herbal remedies on April 1, would that “yes” on the college’s website shield them from responsibility and from accountability if harm were caused?

This is not a matter of semantics; this is an immediate and practical concern. It is about patient safety, the integrity of professional regulation and maintaining public trust. I’m calling on the Minister of Health and the College of Complementary Health Professionals of British Columbia to issue, without delay, a clear and joint written statement confirming that as of April 1, unregulated individuals are not permitted to prescribe traditional Chinese herbal medicines.

Eid ul-Fitr

Amna Shah: Before I begin, I just want to give a huge shout-out and a thank-you to our incredible legislative intern, Abedah Siddiqui, for contributing her thoughts and words to this statement. Uplifting the voices of young leaders like Abedah is a responsibility that we can all share in this House.

I have risen to mark Eid ul-Fitr, a celebration that follows a month of reflection, discipline and renewal for Muslims in British Columbia and around the world. Eid reminds us that faith is not only a private practice but also a public responsibility. The lesson of the holy month of Ramadan calls on us to care for one another, to stand against injustice and to actively contribute to the well-being of our communities.

It is a time that teaches humility in moments of success, patience in times of hardship and generosity even when we ourselves may feel uncertain. This year many celebrated while carrying the weight of global uncertainty and local challenges. Across the world, families continue to navigate conflict, loss and displacement.

Here at home, too many still confront Islamophobia and the quiet barriers that limit belonging, yet history has shown us that the Muslim community does not retreat in the face of adversity. Instead, they build, they serve, and they uplift everybody around them.

Across B.C., Muslims come from every corner of the world and various walks of life. It is an incredibly diverse community. They bring with them languages, traditions and lived experiences that enrich our shared society.

Across this province, Muslims are already strengthening our society as educators, health care workers, volunteers, entrepreneurs and community leaders. Their contributions are essential to the progress and prosperity of British Columbia.

Now, as we celebrated, we were reminded of a few things. Eid calls us to reflect on what more we can do on top of what we’re already doing. It is a moment to encourage greater civic participation, to support our youth in finding their voices and their paths, to engage in public service and to ensure that our democratic institutions reflect the diversity of the people that they serve. Representation matters. Let me repeat that again. Representation matters.

When communities fully participate in civic life, we build stronger, more inclusive policies and a more just society for everybody. Our perspectives, experiences and values are not only welcome in public life; they are essential to building the institutions that truly reflect the people that they serve.

[10:20 a.m.]

Faith teaches us that leadership is a form of service. Faith teaches us to respect leadership. Faith also reminds us that shaping the future is not a responsibility of a few but is a shared duty of everybody.

Over the weekend, our Surrey NDP MLAs held our annual Eid ul-Fitr celebration, and we saw an incredible show of unity and celebration with constituents of all faiths and backgrounds. It wasn’t just about Eid. It was about the joy, the laughter and the love that we all share as we ate, as we sang and as we danced together — together as a community. At the heart of celebration is community, regardless of which faith is being celebrated or which event is being celebrated, and truly, at the heart of faith is community.

To all of those who celebrated Eid ul-Fitr, Eid Mubarak, I pray that this year’s Ramadan and Eid encouraged all of us to build a more just, compassionate and united British Columbia.

Flooding Preparedness
in Boundary-Similkameen Area

Donegal Wilson: It’s spring and a time to celebrate, but as the snow melts and the rains arrive, communities in the Otter and Similkameen Valleys in my riding begin watching the water levels closely. For them, flooding is not a theoretical risk. It is a question they ask every spring and, increasingly, every time heavy rainstorms arrive. Will our community be safe this time? It is a question I hear often from residents across my riding, and one I have to ask myself as well, who lives along the river.

British Columbians will remember the atmospheric rivers of 2021, which caused catastrophic flooding across our province. Communities were cut off, homes were destroyed, and entire neighbourhoods in communities like Princeton and Tulameen were underwater. As devastating as that flooding was, the damage did not end there. Temperatures dropped soon after, and those flood waters froze, expanding and compounding the destruction those communities faced and were already struggling to recover from.

This past winter we have experienced three atmospheric rivers that again pushed rivers and creeks beyond their banks across the valley. For many residents along these rivers, every major rainfall brings real anxiety. People watch the forecast. They watch the river levels. They start lifting their belongings. They start filling sandbags. And they remember what happened last time.

During these rain events, people are up all night walking the riverbanks, and first responders are preparing, knowing there’s little they can do except to help people get to safety if the river rises again. That constant uncertainty is taking a mental toll on the communities and well-being of the people who live there.

One of the challenges in our valley is that flood protection is often approached community by community, rather than viewed from a watershed perspective. But we all know that rivers, lakes and tributaries do not have municipal boundaries.

When one community strengthens their dikes or their mitigation, the risk just moves downstream to the next community. So protecting one section of river without addressing the entire system can increase risk for communities further along the valley. Residents need a coordinated, watershed-wide strategy that protects communities together.

Another serious concern in the valley is the presence of orphaned dikes. These aging infrastructures no longer have a clearly defined owner responsible for maintaining them. Communities like Tulameen and Keremeos rely on them as their only flood protection in these events. Today no one is clearly responsible for maintaining them.

Just as concerning is that no one has the legal authority to do the maintenance or repairs on them either. Authorization and funding only become available once the emergency has been declared. In other words, the only time we can legally work on these is when the river is already rising.

During that atmospheric event in 2021, the Similkameen rose over four metres in a single day. That is 12 feet in 24 hours. We have no ability to prepare for that until that’s already coming up, and now we have hours to try to maintain the safety of our communities. That is not a strategy. It is only a gamble.

[10:25 a.m.]

The other issue we face is that many First Nations along the Similkameen River are not fully included in our provincial flood mitigation planning because their lands fall under federal jurisdiction. As I mentioned before, water does not recognize jurisdictional boundaries. If First Nations communities are excluded from planning, gaps remain that affect everyone along that river. True watershed planning must include all communities along the system.

These communities cannot manage these challenges alone. Flood mitigation often costs tens of millions of dollars, far beyond the tax base of communities like Tulameen, Princeton, Hedley, Keremeos or even Chopaka. The Similkameen Valley needs a coordinated flood mitigation strategy with investment from all levels of government. For families who live along that river, flood mitigation is not a policy exercise.

I wish I was only talking about the Similkameen Valley that’s at risk, but, as the opposition critic for Water, Land and Resource Stewardship, I know these government failures repeat themselves across British Columbia. This is simply the story I’m sharing today as one of those residents who, three times this winter, watched the rain forecast, looked at the snowpack and checked river gauges every hour from behind the orphaned dike in Keremeos.

Until we have a government that will prioritize investment in infrastructure that prevents emergencies, rather than only providing funding to respond to them, families like mine will keep watching the river instead of sleeping when the rain begins.

Post-Secondary Institutions
in the Kootenays and
Role of Rural Colleges

Steve Morissette: I was fortunate just last week to visit two outstanding rural colleges in the Kootenays — Selkirk College in the West Kootenays and College of the Rockies in the East Kootenays — alongside the Minister of Post-Secondary and Future Skills. What we saw reinforced everything we know about the vital role rural colleges play in this province.

At both institutions, there was a clear and powerful connection between education and community. These are not distant, disconnected campuses. They are deeply embedded in the regions they serve. They understand their communities, they respond to their needs, and they deliver training that directly supports local people and local economies.

We saw firsthand how these colleges are identifying regional labour market demands and stepping up to meet them. Programs aligned with health care, the skilled trades and local industries are not theoretical. They are practical, hands-on and designed with direct input from employers and community partners. Students are gaining real-world skills that translate immediately into jobs in their own communities.

What stood out just as much was the sense of opportunity. At Selkirk College and College of the Rockies, students are not just learning; they are building futures. For many, these institutions are the first step into post-secondary education. They provide a supportive environment where students can grow in confidence in rural areas, still stay at home, develop independence and prepare for whatever path they choose next, whether that is entering the workforce or continuing their studies.

In regions like the Kootenays, these colleges are often the only post-secondary institutions available. That makes their presence not just valuable but essential. Without them, many students simply would not have the same access to post-secondary education and training.

I also want to acknowledge the people we met — the instructors, the staff and the students. Their dedication, their passion and their pride in their institutions were evident in every conversation. They are committed to their communities and to ensuring that these colleges continue to serve as engines of opportunity and growth.

Visits like this are an important reminder that the strength of our post-secondary system is not just found in large urban centres. It is found in every region of this province in British Columbia, where rural colleges are doing extraordinary work every day to train the workforce, support local economies and open doors for people from all walks of life.

[10:30 a.m.]

I am grateful for the opportunity to have seen that work up close, and I am proud to stand in this House and reaffirm our support for rural colleges across British Columbia, because what they do matters, and the impact they have is felt far beyond their campuses.

FireSmart Program and
Impact of Wildfire Events
on Carbon Emissions

David Williams: Wildfire has become one of the important challenges facing communities across our province, especially in rural communities like those in the Shuswap and throughout the Interior.

In recent years, British Columbians have seen the devastating impact of wildfires. Entire communities have faced evacuation. Families have lost homes. Businesses have been disrupted. The economic and emotional toll has been enormous.

In response to these growing risks, programs like FireSmart community funding and supports program have become an important part of our wildfire prevention strategy. FireSmart is built on a simple principle. Wildfire resistance requires preparation at every level — governments, communities and individual homeowners. Through this program, local governments and First Nations can access funding for wildfire risk assessments, public education, community planning and mitigation work designed to reduce the risk to homes and infrastructure being lost during wildfire events.

Research shows that FireSmart measures can significantly reduce the likelihood of structure ignition. In other words, forest management and proactive mitigation matter, but this requires sustained investment and long-term planning.

Budget 2026 includes approximately $15 million in additional funding for the FireSmart program. On the surface, this may sound great, but in reality, it functions largely as a short-term top-up to a program that was already running out of funds.

Recent changes have also moved the program toward a more competitive intake process, limiting projects to a single-year funding cycle and narrowing the scope of eligible activities in some areas. Short-term grants simply do not provide the certainty required for long-term resilience. Demand for FireSmart funding far exceeds the available resources, with organizations competing against one another for very limited funding.

We must recognize that many of the communities facing the greatest wildfire risk are smaller rural communities. These communities often have limited staff capacity, fewer resources and smaller tax bases, yet they are directly impacted. In regions like the Shuswap, communities are surrounded by forests that support tourism, recreation and local economies, but those same forests also increase wildfire exposure.

That is why the FireSmart programs are so important. They help communities reduce the risk before disaster strikes. They help homeowners understand what steps they can take to protect their properties, and increasingly, they also matter in another area — insurance.

The Insurance Bureau of Canada and others have warned that wildfire risk is beginning to influence the availability and the affordability of home insurance in parts of the country. Insurers are increasingly looking at risk reduction measures when accessing coverage.

There’s another point that must be made. British Columbia’s climate policy is increasingly being driven by ideology rather than reality.

Since the catastrophic 2017 wildfire season, wildfires in B.C. have been releasing enormous amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. In some years, wildfire emissions have exceeded B.C.’s total annual emissions from transportation, industry and energy combined. Yet under current government accounting rules, wildfire emissions are excluded because they are labelled “natural disturbances.” But the atmosphere does not care about government frameworks. Carbon is carbon.

[10:35 a.m.]

While this NDP government focuses on emission and reduction policies that target families, drivers and small businesses, catastrophic wildfires are one of the largest sources of carbon released in severe years, yet they receive far less attention in climate planning than they should. A single severe wildfire season can erase years, even decades, of those reductions.

If we truly care about the climate, then science tells us the solution must include serious forest management, fuel reduction and wildfire prevention. That is why communities across this province continue to ask for long-term vision and investment necessary to ensure that communities, both large and small, have the certainty and the fire resilience ability.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, according to the order paper, we will continue debate on Motion M201, moved by the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine.

Private Members’ Motions

Motion M201 — Access to Clean Water
and Canadian Sovereignty
(continued)

Ian Paton: I’m happy to support Motion 201 brought forward by the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine: “That this House affirms its commitment to affordable, equitable and accessible clean water as an important component of Canadian sovereignty.”

What are three of the most important necessities to human existence? Sun, food and water. Agriculture doesn’t exist without sunshine and water. Ensuring universal access to clean, potable water for all residents of British Columbia is both a public health necessity and a cornerstone of sustainable development.

While the province is often perceived as water-rich due to its abundant rivers, lakes and snowfall, reliable access to safe drinking water and consistent water supply for agriculture is not guaranteed across all regions. Climate variability, aging infrastructure, population growth and competing water demands increasingly challenge water management systems. Addressing these issues requires coordinated policies that prioritize equitable access, resilient infrastructure and sustainable water allocation.

For many communities in British Columbia, particularly rural and Indigenous communities, access to safe drinking water remains inconsistent. Small or remote systems often lack the financial resources and technical capacity required to maintain modern treatment facilities and monitoring systems. Ensuring safe, potable water requires sustained investment in water treatment plants, distribution infrastructure and regular testing programs.

Provincial and federal governments must continue to support infrastructure upgrades and provide technical training to local water operators. Expanding watershed protection initiatives is also essential, as protecting source water from pollution and environmental degradation is often the most effective way to maintain long-term water quality.

Equally important is the need to secure consistent water availability for agriculture, which is vital to British Columbia’s food security and rural economies. Regions such as the Cariboo, Chilcotin, Peace River, Vancouver Island, Okanagan Valley and parts of the Fraser Valley rely heavily on irrigation to support fruit orchards, vineyards, dairy farms and vegetable production. These agricultural systems depend on predictable water supplies, particularly during the increasingly dry and warm summer months.

Climate change is intensifying seasonal droughts and altering snowpack patterns which historically acted as a natural water reservoir. Reduced snowpack and earlier spring melt mean that less water is available later in the growing season when crops need it most. To address these challenges, the province must invest in modern irrigation infrastructure and improved water storage systems.

Reservoir expansion, aquifer recharge projects and on-farm water storage can help capture winter and spring runoff for use during these dry periods. At the same time, promoting efficient irrigation technologies such as drip irrigation, 360 rain irrigation systems, soil moisture monitoring and precision agriculture can significantly reduce water waste while maintaining crop productivity. Financial incentives and technical support can encourage farmers to adopt these.

As a former dairy farmer, I know all too well the volumes of water a dairy cow or a beef cow consumes daily. Did you know that a dairy cow producing high volumes of milk during the summer months will easily drink up to 100 litres of water per day?

Ultimately, ensuring access to clean drinking water while maintaining sufficient irrigation resources requires forward-thinking water governance.

[10:40 a.m.]

Overall, the lack of free and accessible water threatens food production, farmers’ livelihoods and global food security. Ensuring fair and sustainable access to water is crucial for supporting farmers and maintaining stable agricultural systems.

Linda Hepner: When people think of a large urban centre in British Columbia, they picture housing, transit and industry. But in my riding, like several across our province, we also have productive agricultural land woven into the urban fabric. That gives us a unique perspective on water.

In British Columbia, we have long understood water to be one of our greatest natural advantages. But abundance does not automatically mean affordability, and it certainly does not guarantee resilience. For farmers operating within and adjacent to our cities, reliable and affordable access to high-quality water is not optional. It determines whether crops are planted, whether livestock operations continue and whether local food remains on local shelves.

Urban-adjacent farmers face unique pressures. Land values are high. Infrastructure must compete with other urban priorities. During dry summers, when water restrictions tighten, agriculture can feel squeezed between residential and industrial demands. Climate change compounds these pressures. Hotter summers, lower snowpacks and prolonged drought conditions require investments in storage, in efficiency and in innovation, simply to maintain production.

I also want to speak directly to my colleagues who represent rural and small-town British Columbia communities, where agriculture is not simply part of the landscape but part of the identity and economic foundation. In many of those ridings, water supports not only fields and orchards but fruit processors, local employers, small businesses and entire town centres. It sustains ranches and family farms, yes, but it also sustains the mechanics, the equipment suppliers, the truck drivers, the local grocers and the schools that depend on stable local economies.

You need assurance, and you deserve it, that as we modernize water policy, we will protect British Columbia’s sovereign responsibility to manage water in a way that keeps it accessible and affordable for food production and the communities that depend on it.

Let me be clear that protecting affordability for agriculture is not about favouring one region over another. It’s about recognizing that rural and small-town B.C. cannot absorb unpredictable cost increases or policy uncertainty in the same way larger urban centres sometimes can.

When water becomes unaffordable for producers, the consequences ripple outward. A farm scales back. A processor loses supply. Seasonal workers are not hired. Local businesses feel the contraction. Small towns, already working hard to maintain services and population, feel further strain. True resilience means ensuring that water policy reflects the reality on the ground that farming margins are often tight, that climate adaptation requires investment and that the public benefit of local food production must be factored into our decisions.

Maintaining affordable access to water for agriculture strengthens rural economies, protects small-town stability and reduces our dependence on imported food grown under standards that we do not control. British Columbia has always managed its own water resources with independence.

[10:45 a.m.]

As pressures grow from climate change, population growth and competing demands, our commitment must be clear. We will safeguard our watersheds and safeguard the communities that rely on them. Water for food production in British Columbia must remain responsibly managed, sovereign, reliable and affordable.

Ward Stamer: Today I rise today in support of M201, clean water sovereignty.

Water is not a resource in British Columbia. It is the lifeblood of our communities, our economy and our environment. From the smallest rural towns to our largest cities, access to clean, reliable water is not optional. It is essential. Yet for too many British Columbians, especially in rural and remote regions, that certainty has not always been guaranteed. This bill fixes that.

From a Conservative perspective, M201 speaks directly to a principle we firmly believe in, that critical resources, especially something as fundamental as water, must be protected, managed responsibly and kept firmly under the control of the people of British Columbia.

That is what sovereignty means. It means decisions about our water are made here in this province with the best interests of British Columbians in mind, not influenced by outside pressures, not compromised by short-term thinking and left vulnerable to mismanagement. Clean water sovereignty is about three key things: protection, accountability and local control.

First is protection. British Columbia is blessed with abundant water resources, but abundance does not equal invincibility. We have seen growing pressures from population growth, industrial demand, climate variability and aging infrastructure. Without proper safeguards, even a water-rich province like ours can face shortages, contamination or inequitable access. M201 recognizes that reality and puts forward a framework to ensure that our water remains clean, safe and secure not just for today but for generations to come.

Second is accountability, because too often when things go wrong with water systems, whether it’s contamination, boil-water advisories or infrastructure failure, communities are left asking: “Who is responsible?” This bill strengthens oversight and clarifies responsibility. It ensures the government cannot simply pass the buck and that there are clear expectations on how water resources are managed, monitored and protected. That matters deeply to the people that we represent, because when it comes to water, there’s no room for uncertainty.

The third is local control. One of the greatest frustrations we hear, especially from rural and Indigenous communities, is that decisions affecting their water are often made far away without adequate consultation or understanding of local conditions. M201 moves towards a more locally responsible model. It acknowledges that communities must have a stronger voice in how their water is managed.

From a Conservative perspective, that is exactly the right approach. We believe in empowering communities, not sidelining them. We believe that those closest to their resource are often best positioned to protect it.

Let’s also be honest about the economic dimension of it. Clean water is not only a public health necessity; it’s a cornerstone of our economies. Our agriculture sector depends upon it. Our forestry and resource industries rely upon it. Our tourist industry is built on it.

Protecting water is not a conflict with economic growth. It is a prerequisite for it. M201 strikes that balance. It reinforces that we can protect our natural resources while still supporting responsible development and job creation. That is the kind of practical, balanced approach that British Columbians expect from us.

There is also broader principle at play. Around the world, we are seeing increased pressure on our water resources, whether through scarcity, privatization or geopolitical tension. British Columbia must be clear that our water is not for exploitation and is not for mismanagement. It is a public trust. M201 sends that message clearly and firmly. It says that we take responsibility for our water, that we will safeguard it and that we will ensure it remains accessible and protected for future generations.

Now, with any legislation, there’s always room for refinement. As we continue to listen to stakeholders, to communities and to experts, this bill will hopefully be able to move forward. Let’s not lose sight of the picture.

[10:50 a.m.]

This bill is a step in the right direction. It reinforces Conservative values, which are responsible stewardship, local empowerment and government accountability.

I encourage all the members in this House to support M201 because it protects our water, protects our people, strengthens our accountability, strengthens our trust, and it also stands up for the sovereignty over our most vital resources. We stand up for our water, and we stand up for the future of British Columbians.

Deputy Speaker: I’ll now call on the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine to close debate on her motion, M201.

Sharon Hartwell: This motion is being presented to bring attention to the state of our water delivery and consumption in our communities across B.C., all our communities. I find it disturbing that we have let the state of our most precious resource, water, become an afterthought for the residents in our communities. We welcome people to live in our communities but have not kept up with failing and inadequate infrastructure, and communities are falling behind.

Every year communities need to make uncomfortable choices. What do we need to ask our taxpayers for in this budget year? Should it be upgrading our parks, investing in our sidewalks or investing in tourism? What are the needs of the community? So we then sacrifice, making the choice of putting off upgrades for water infrastructure.

Clean, affordable water is a human right for each and every one of us. Each time we turn on the tap, we expect clean, safe water for brushing our teeth, making our coffee in the morning, doing the dishes, laundry, all of those things.

People move to communities for many things. Lifestyle is part of this. They are expecting an affordable quality of life. They are expecting the basic services that come with living in a community.

Every year the tax bill goes up. The cost of maintaining the failing infrastructure leaves them putting off the upgrades so desperately needed. In doing so, the costs go up. This is a constant struggle to find the balance of providing for the needs of the communities.

We are seeing the consequences of poor funding choices in Alberta and the cost of not providing regular upgrades to water infrastructure to maintain what the public expects. The taxpayers deserve the services that they are being taxed for.

Recently, there was an incident in West Kelowna, with a breach into their water reservoir. Communities are now needing to upgrade systems just to protect their water source.

This isn’t just a municipal concern. It affects each and every one of us, no matter where we live or what lifestyle we have, whether you live in a rural community or an urban environment.

Here are some stats. Boil-water notices as of February 24 of this year: Interior Health, 505; Northern Health, over 150; Vancouver Coastal, 66. Water quality advisories at the same time: Interior Health, 101; Northern Health, over 40; and Vancouver Coastal, 21.

These stats should concern everyone. Do you know the quality of water being delivered to your home?

In 2024, more than 14,000 residents in Prince Rupert had a boil-water advisory for more than two months, yet residents still had to continue to pay for non-potable water.

The Comox water treatment plant project design and construction has been underway since 2019, to bring system capacity and standards in line with regulatory objectives. This is only one of many projects that are currently falling behind. According to the CVRD status reporting, a treatment plant solution is required to meet health authority objectives for microbiological concerns and is undergoing design review and evaluation ahead of construction, indicating future work needs and pending delivery.

The government needs to re-evaluate the importance of investing in community infrastructure. The theme of this year’s budget is “Look west.” I would strongly encourage the government to do just that and commit to listening to communities about their needs. The infrastructure not only in the North but across the province is inadequate and out of date.

This is from the Minister of Infrastructure’s mandate letter: “Recognizing B.C.’s growing communities and aging infrastructure, we are to ensure faster delivery of cost-effective, high-quality generational investments.” One would ask: which generation?

Water quality advisory in Canal Flats. Residents have had to advocate for access to water. They have formed a water protection and advisory committee with the goal of implementing Interior Health’s orders to upgrade and disinfect the water. This project could cost the small village millions of dollars.

These are just a few examples of the state of infrastructure across B.C. I would urge all members to vote in favour of safe, affordable water for every community in British Columbia.

[10:55 a.m.]

Deputy Speaker: Members, the question is motion M201.

Motion approved.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, according to the order paper, we will look to the member next on the list of precedence to move their item of business.

Motion M203 — Merit Oversight
in Public Service

Tony Luck: I move motion M203, standing in my name on the order paper.

[That the House affirms that the application of the merit principle within the B.C. Public Service be overseen by an independent officer of the Legislature.]

I rise today to speak to my motion, M203, and I do so with a very clear message. This is about trust, this is about accountability, and this is about the steady erosion of legislative oversight in this province.

The people of British Columbia are not asking for perfection from their government, but they are absolutely entitled to expect fairness, transparency and accountability. Remember, the people’s business is the people’s business. Increasingly they are asking a simple question: “Who is watching the government?”

In a healthy democracy, we operate on a principle that is both practical and wise: trust but verify. We trust our institutions. We trust our public servants. We trust that decisions are made in the public interest. But we also verify. We verify through independent officers of this Legislature, and we verify through a transparent process. We verify through oversight that is separate from power, not controlled by it, because trust without verification is not trust at all. It is blind faith, and blind faith has no place in modern democracy.

That is why Motion 203 matters, because it affirms a principle that should never be controversial: that the application of the merit principle in the B.C. Public Service must be overseen by an independent officer of this Legislature. Not internalized, not absorbed, not controlled by the executive — independent.

What we are seeing from this government tells a very different story. We are seeing a pattern of centralizing authority, a pattern of removing independent oversight, a pattern of asking British Columbia to simply accept that government police will police itself. We have seen it in the elimination of the Merit Commissioner. We have seen it in the weakening of other oversight mechanisms.

Each time the justification is the same: efficiency, streamlining and cost savings. But the result is also the same: less accountability, less transparency and less trust.

This is where we must step back and understand what is really happening. This is not about one office. This is not about one decision. It’s about a broad trend, one that thinkers like John Michael Greer have warned about. Greer reminds us that societies and governments do not lose their integrity all at once. He writes: “Collapse doesn’t happen all at once. It proceeds by a ragged series of crises, and each of these pushes the system to a lower level of complexity and capacity.”

That is not a dramatic collapse. That is a slow erosion — a safeguard removed here, an oversight body eliminated there, a quiet shift of power away from independent scrutiny and into centralized control. Each step is small enough to defend, but taken together they tell a very different story.

Here’s the reality. When government removes independent oversight, it is not just removing a process; it is removing confidence. When government says, “Trust us,” but eliminates the mechanism that allows the public to verify that trust, it creates doubt. When that doubt grows, it does not stay contained. It spreads.

Greer also warned that when this process takes hold, government begins to lose something even more dangerous than oversight. They begin to lose the narrative. As he puts it: “When a society’s leadership loses the ability to make its preferred narrative stick, the process of decline accelerates.”

British Columbians can see the contraction…. They hear the word “transparency,” but they see oversight being dismantled at every corner. They hear the word “fairness,” but they see independent verification removed. How do they know? They hear the word “accountability,” but they see government increasingly accountable only to itself.

[11:00 a.m.]

This is why this motion matters. It is not radical. It is not partisan. But it’s foundational, and it simply says that merit must be protected, that oversight must remain independent and that accountability must flow to the Legislature, not be absorbed by the executive, because at the end of the day, this House does not belong to government. It belongs to the people of British Columbia. It is through this House that accountability must be exercised.

The question before us is very clear. Do we believe in “trust but verify,” or do we believe that government should be trusted without verification? Do we strengthen oversight, or do we continue down a path where oversight is being quietly diminished and eroded?

Democracy is not lost in a single moment. It is weakened incrementally.

I urge all members of the House to have the courage to stand and support this. Stand for trust, stand for accountability, and stand for independent oversight.

Susie Chant: I thank you for the opportunity to speak to Motion M203.

Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge that, as always, I am speaking on the lands of the lək̓ʷəŋən, specifically the Songhees and xʷsepsəm groups. I am always grateful to be here.

When I am in North Vancouver–Seymour, I have the opportunity to be on the lands of the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh and the səlilwətaɬ People. From everybody in the Coast Salish and elsewhere, I am always learning and learning more. I am very grateful for those opportunities.

The Merit Commissioner’s primary role has been to perform random audits for hiring and just cause dismissals within the public service. The role was created under the old government to ensure the Public Service Agency, or PSA, was upholding the principle of merit.

Since we have been in government, merit has become part of the culture of the PSA. The PSA has strengthened its work to create a hiring culture that is transparent and accountable, one that attracts and retains the top-level talent we need to improve the lives of everyone in this province.

In the commissioner’s own words, from page 32 of the most recent annual report: “Due process is being followed, with process steps being completed, interviews being fairly conducted and employees having full and fair opportunities to respond to issues.”

In the last fiscal year of 2024-25, the Office of the Merit Commissioner conducted 276 audits of hirings and appointments in the public service. They found that “there was no evidence of patronage in any appointment this year.” That’s from page 18, if you care to follow up.

The office has also stated that, in the ’24-25 annual report, “with respect to fair hiring principles, we observe that open and transparent processes continue to be a cornerstone of hiring for organizations who hire under the act, as is the use of objective and relevant means of assessment.” Also on page 18.

In fact, the commissioner found an increase of 8 percent in merit findings in the 2025 year. Page 15.

The Public Service Agency is a non-partisan professional organization. Similar to the Office of the Merit Commissioner, the PSA does not make hiring decisions about employees and individual ministries. This allows the agency to provide the same level of arm’s-length oversight for staffing purposes.

Going forward, the PSA will continue to provide staffing reviews, quality assurances and public annual reports on hiring, promotions and dismissals in the public service. The reintegration of these functions into the PSA will reduce costs, improve access to services for government workers and align us with practices of other provinces of Canada.

There is always room to improve operations, and the PSA is well set up to continue to do this work so that we can attract and retain top-level talent and make B.C. an even better place to live.

Donegal Wilson: I rise today in strong support of the motion brought forward by the member for Fraser-Nicola. It is, specifically, “that this House affirms that the application of the merit principle within the B.C. Public Service be overseen by an independent officer of the Legislature.”

[11:05 a.m.]

At its core, this motion is about public confidence. British Columbians deserve to know that when someone is hired, promoted or appointed using taxpayer dollars, those decisions are based on merit — not connections, not proximity to government and not political loyalty. That is exactly what the Office of the Merit Commissioner was designed to ensure.

Yet this year the government eliminated that independent oversight for approximately $2 million in savings. It’s less than $2 million for an office that audited appointments, reviewed staffing decisions, examined dismissal processes and reported directly to this Legislature so that the members of this House and the public we represent could know whether that merit principle was actually being applied. That is not duplication; that is accountability infrastructure.

Government has suggested that the office is no longer necessary because internal policies and processes already exist to ensure merit-based hiring. But policy is not oversight. Policy says what should happen, and independent oversight confirms whether it actually did.

In fact, the Merit Commissioner’s own service plan tells us something important. It shows that findings where merit was not applied in hiring decisions have been increasing in recent years within the public service itself. So at exactly the moment when independent verification matters most, this government has chosen to remove it.

There is another important issue here. Even when the Merit Commissioner existed, its oversight applied only to appointments made under the Public Service Act. That means thousands of taxpayer-funded positions already fell outside of its scope — appointments to Crown corporations, agency boards; special advisers to the ministers or to the Premier; senior public sector leadership roles — funded by British Columbians but not covered by that independent merit oversight. Right now there is no independent watchdog for any appointment, but especially for those. That is why restoring this office is so important.

I believe we should also expand its mandate. If taxpayers are funding the salary, taxpayers deserve confidence in that appointment. Independent merit oversight should not stop at the edge of a statute. It should follow the public dollar.

British Columbians expect that appointments made with their money are made because someone is the best-qualified person for that job; not because they are the most connected; not because they are the most convenient; and, certainly, not because they are politically aligned. Independent oversight protects governments as much as it protects the public. It ensures appointments are defensible, it ensures that institutions remain credible, and it ensures that public servants themselves are supported by a hiring system that they can trust.

That is exactly why the Merit Commissioner was created as an independent office of this Legislature — to provide transparency, to provide accountability and to strengthen confidence in public institutions. Removing that oversight weakens all three. Restoring it would strengthen it, but expanding it to include all taxpayer-funded positions would provide something British Columbians do not currently have: true merit accountability across government for every position funded with taxpayer dollars.

This motion is reasonable, it is responsible, and it reflects something I believe every member of this House supports, that public positions funded by the people of British Columbia should be filled based on merit. I encourage all members to support this motion.

Misty Van Popta: At its core, Motion 203 is about one simple but essential concept: fairness. It’s about ensuring that public service hiring and promotions are based on ability, qualifications and performance, not on personal or political connections.

For over two decades, the Office of the Merit Commissioner has acted as a critical safeguard of that fairness, providing independent review, accountability and transparency in how government hires and promotes its employees. The merit principle is not a partisan idea; it is a cornerstone of good governance and professional public service. But under recent changes, this government is taking a deeply concerning step, eliminating the independent Office of the Merit Commissioner.

[11:10 a.m.]

They call it a cost-saving measure, yet the entire annual budget of that office is just $1.7 million, less than a rounding error in this government’s finances. In reality, what’s being eliminated is independent accountability. The very oversight that ensures hiring in government is not subject to favouritism or political interference will now move under the Minister of Finance — the same executive authority it is meant to be independent from.

Let’s be clear. Shifting this oversight inside government means government will now oversee itself. That’s not accountability; that’s the opposite.

The data speaks volumes. Since the Premier has been in office, the Merit Commissioner has found “merit not applied” in 10 percent of all job appointments reviewed, the highest level in nearly a decade. As the commissioner has said: “The cost of losing independent oversight may ultimately far exceed the savings from eliminating a small oversight body.”

He also noted that the most recent audit “found the highest rate of flawed hiring processes and outcomes in nearly a decade.” Those are not my words. They are the words of the independent officer whose work this government is now cutting off.

Other voices are raising the alarms too. The president of the BCGEU said bluntly: “They’re overseeing themselves. It effectively eliminates the audit function.” And he’s right. Without independent oversight, British Columbians can no longer have confidence that hiring in their public service is based on merit.

Let’s remember that the Merit Commissioner’s office was created in 2001 precisely to separate merit-based hiring from politics. Interestingly, back then, the NDP opposed the creation of the Merit Commissioner, with NDP members voting against it. Today they are following through on that same instinct by abolishing it altogether.

British Columbians expect better. They expect their public service to be non-partisan, competent and fair. They expect jobs to be earned, not handed out. This motion is not about questioning the professionalism of public servants. Quite the opposite. It’s about protecting their integrity.

A strong, independent oversight system safeguards those who do their jobs honestly and well. It ensures that every position, from the front desk to the executive office, is filled by the best-qualified person. Public servants deserve assurance. The public deserves that assurance. That’s what builds trust. That’s what makes government work for everyone, not just those with political connections.

By passing this motion, we affirm that merit must remain the guiding principle of our public service and that its oversight must remain independent of government control. Because once independence is gone, it is not easily restored. Once the public loses trust in how their government hires and promotes, we all lose.

I urge all members of this House, regardless of party, to stand for fairness, accountability and public trust. Support this motion, keep merit-based hiring truly independent.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, I want to encourage those participating in the debate to keep your remarks directed to the motion itself and avoid wading into the specifics of Bill 2, which is currently before the House.

For reference, I’ll re-read the motion that is under debate. Motion M203: “That the House affirms that the application of the merit principle within the B.C. Public Service be overseen by an independent office of the Legislature.”

Brennan Day: I rise today in strong support of Motion M203, brought forward by my friend and colleague for Fraser-Nicola.

I have to say, it is remarkable that we are even debating something this basic in this House. But given the performative, divisive and chronically unproductive record of this government, I suppose it is right on brand that we are now watching core principles like transparency and accountability treated as optional.

[11:15 a.m.]

The idea that hiring in the B.C. Public Service should be based on merit, on qualifications, on the ability to actually do the job, not on who you know, should not be particularly controversial.

It should be, in fact, beyond debate. It should be the floor. But here we are, because while this motion calls for independent oversight of the merit principle, this government is moving in exactly the opposite direction.

They have eliminated the independent Office of the Merit Commissioner in this $13.3 billion budget boondoggle — not improving it, not modernizing it, just eliminating it. And the justification? Cost savings. That is what stands between independent oversight and a system where the government oversees itself.

In a budget approaching $100 billion, accountability is apparently the line item that they’ve decided to trim. Very convenient, and extremely shameful. Not a cut to the web of appointed boards and agencies filled with NDP friends, insiders, donors or loyalists, many of whom it is worth noting are not even subject to the Merit Commissioner’s oversight in the first place. So let’s be clear about what is actually being lost here.

In the most recent year, 10 percent of appointments reviewed did not apply merit — 10 percent, one in ten. So to minimize one in ten is truly shocking by the previous speaker. That is not a minor issue. That is a system warning you that something is not working and that the government is not their own best watchdog. And that is trending in the wrong direction.

The Merit Commissioner — sorry, I should say former Merit Commissioner since the NDP has already kicked him to the curb — stated in his most recent report and, turns out, final report: “We are seeing the highest rate of flawed hiring in nearly a decade.” So what was the government’s response? Fix the problem? Tighten the system? No. Fire the guy that’s launching the warning flares.

We have seen this government steadily tighten its grip on information, making it harder to access, easier to delay and more convenient to control. Now we are seeing that same instinct applied to hiring. It is a pattern and one that should be very concerning to everybody in British Columbia. Less sunlight, more discretion and fewer independent eyes.

When you remove oversight, when you bring everything inside the executive office, you are not increasing efficiency. You are simply reducing accountability, and that includes accountability by the members on the other side of this room.

This NDP government is already quietly reshaping the public service, altering job titles and descriptions to mask a decline in qualifications and basic standards. Roles that once required certified accredited professionals are being diluted. Certified social workers are being replaced with analysts and case managers. Engineers replaced with specialists. Project managers being downgraded to project coordinators.

That is not modernization. That is a slow erosion of competency and capacity. And British Columbians are feeling it.

You see it in projects that come in years late and billions of dollars over budget. You feel it when you pick up the phone and hope the person on the other end actually knows how to navigate the system. Because today it has become a lottery. If you get the right qualified person, you get help. If you get the wrong person, you get trapped in a bureaucratic maze that goes nowhere.

Everybody in this room, including our staff and CA offices, understand that experience, and that is the real-world consequence of lowering the bar. It is not theoretical. It shows up in the lives of people trying to support an aging parent, a child with special needs or a friend struggling with mental health. When competency slips, people pay the price.

This motion does not undermine the public service. It protects it, because government should not be marking its own homework. Independent oversight reporting to this Legislature is not optional. It is essential in the basic functioning and transparency of government.

So the question for the members opposite is simple. If you believe in merit, support independent oversight. If you believe in fairness, support independent oversight. If you believe the public deserves to trust the system, then support this motion. And if you do not, then at least have the courage to explain why with more than simple obfuscation.

Deputy Speaker: I’d just like to remind members that we’re debating the motion and to be mindful we’re not veering into areas that are included in Bill 2, which is before the House.

[11:20 a.m.]

Reann Gasper: I want to begin a little differently today because, for me, this motion is not just about policy. It is personal.

I stand in this House as a woman of colour. Only a handful have ever had the privilege of being elected here. I stand as a mother of three, raising my children to believe that if they work hard, do the right thing and show up with integrity, it will matter. I stand here as someone whose life is shaped by a deep faith, a belief that we are called to walk in truth, to act justly and to serve others with humility.

When we talk about the merit principle, this isn’t abstract to me. This is about fairness. This is about whether the system actually reflects the values we say we hold. When we pick people, people of British Columbia want to know they are qualified and they are capable because they have earned it, not because of who they know, not because of who they’re connected to, not because of politics behind closed doors.

The merit principle matters. It matters to the young person watching, it matters to the parents raising their kids, and it matters to every British Columbian who wants to believe that this province is fair. But when trust is fragile already, what is broken is very hard to rebuild.

One of the ways we protect trust is by making sure that checks are in place not just internally but independently. That is why the Office of the Merit Commissioner exists. It’s to provide that independent oversight, to look at hiring decisions and say, yes, this was done properly or, no, it wasn’t — not politically, not personally, just truthfully.

What we’ve seen in recent years should give us a pause. There have been increased cases where merit was not applied, and that should concern all of us. That tells us something isn’t working the way it should. Yet instead of strengthening oversight, this government is choosing to eliminate the independent office that provides it.

To move those responsibilities into government itself….

Deputy Speaker: Member, just a minute.

Recognizing the member for Ladysmith-Oceanside.

Point of Order

Stephanie Higginson: I would like to call a point of order that the reference to Bill 2 has already been well covered by the Speaker, yet the members opposite continue to canvass it during their speeches.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

Continue.

Debate Continued

Reann Gasper: To remove those responsibilities into government itself, I have to ask respectfully but clearly: how does government overseeing itself build trust? How does removing independence increase accountability? From where I stand, it does the opposite.

As a mother, I think about the kind of system we are shaping for the next generation. I want my children to know that if they put the work in, develop their abilities and carry themselves with integrity, they will have real earned opportunity not based on favour or connections but based on merit. If we start weakening the structures that protect that principle, what message are we sending?

We are not just talking about hiring processes. We are shaping the kind of province we want to be. Are we a place where fairness is real, or do we just say we are? I believe, in the end, what is hidden doesn’t stay hidden forever. It always finds the light. It always comes to the surface.

Accountability does matter, and integrity is not optional. It is foundational, and I believe it applies here. Independent oversight is not about distress. It is about responsibility. It is about recognizing that no system is perfect and that transparency makes it stronger.

[11:25 a.m.]

This isn’t just hypothetical. We are already seeing warning signs. In the most recent reporting year, about 10 percent of appointments reviewed did not meet the merit standard. That’s not one or two cases. It’s a pattern. The Merit Commissioner has also pointed out that this is the highest rate of flawed hiring processes in nearly a decade. Again, we need to pause and actually take a look at what is happening within the system so we can make it better.

Lynne Block: I rise today to speak in support of Motion M203, a motion grounded in a principle that should never, ever be controversial. Hiring and promotion in the B.C. Public Service must be based on merit.

At its core, the merit principle is simple. It means selecting the best person for the job, based on ability, qualifications and performance, not political loyalty, not personal relationships and certainly not convenience. This is not an abstract idea. It is the foundation of a professional, effective and trusted public service.

British Columbians expect this. They expect that when someone is hired or promoted within government, it is because they earned it. They expect fairness. They expect transparency. Above all, they expect that their government serves the public interest, not insiders or well-connected individuals.

That is why independent oversight matters. When hiring decisions are reviewed by an officer who reports to the Legislative Assembly rather than to the executive, we create a system that is accountable not to power but to the people. Independent oversight ensures that decisions are scrutinized fairly, free from political pressure or favouritism. It strengthens the integrity of the system and protects it from erosion.

Let us be clear. Public trust is fragile. It takes years to build and moments to lose. When British Columbians see that hiring is done fairly and transparently, trust grows. But when oversight is weakened, when accountability is removed, that trust begins to crack. And once it is gone, it is incredibly difficult to restore.

That is why the decision to eliminate the Office of the Merit Commissioner is so deeply concerning. We are told this is about cost savings. But at a time when findings of “merit not applied” are increasing, when the need for oversight is clearly growing, we are choosing to eliminate the very office responsible for ensuring accountability, all for a fraction of the provincial budget.

As Merit Commissioner David McCoy himself warned, the cost of losing independent oversight may far exceed the savings, and he’s right. The true cost is not measured in dollars. It is measured in lost confidence, weakened institutions and diminished trust in this government.

Even more troubling is that these changes shift oversight functions into the hands of the executive, effectively allowing government to oversee itself. That is not accountability. That is the complete opposite. That is the absence of accountability.

Motion M203 offers a better path. It does not tear down the public service. It strengthens it. It does not question the professionalism of public servants. It protects it. By reinforcing independent oversight, we ensure that those who serve B.C. are selected based on merit and that they take pride in a system that is fair and just. A strong merit-based public service delivers better outcomes. It leads to better decisions, better services and better results for every single person in this province.

[11:30 a.m.]

This principle is not new. It is rooted in a broader truth about fairness and justice. As Martin Luther King Jr. once said: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” When merit is ignored, when fairness is compromised, even if it’s something as seemingly procedural as hiring, it creates a ripple effect. It undermines confidence, it weakens institutions and, ultimately, it threatens the very idea that government can act in the public’s best interests.

That’s why this motion matters. It is about protecting fairness, about restoring accountability and about ensuring that the people of B.C. can trust that their Public Service works for them. Let us stand for merit and transparency, and let us stand for the principle that Public Service must always serve the public first, last and always.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, again I want to encourage everyone participating for your remarks in the debate to be directed towards the motion itself and not towards Bill 2, which are the specifics and which is before the House.

As a reference, re-reading the motion itself, the motion is “that the House affirms that the application of the merit principle within the B.C. Public Service be overseen by an independent officer of the Legislature.”

Kiel Giddens: I want to start by thanking the member for Fraser-Nicola for bringing forward Motion M203. I believe this is an important motion to affirm the Legislature’s support of the merit principle in the Public Service and independent oversight by this Legislature. Ultimately, as we’ve heard, this is about fairness for people working in the B.C. Public Service.

The merit principle is simple. Hiring and promotion should be based on ability, experience and qualifications, not personal or political connections. For public servants, I think that matters. It’s about knowing that if you do your job well, you’ll be treated fairly and have a real opportunity to advance. Political influence or partisan decision-making shouldn’t apply.

Now, the Office of the Merit Commissioner has provided that independent oversight to help ensure that principle is followed. The office reviews appointments and reports to this Legislature, not to a specific minister or to the cabinet. That independence, I believe, is important. It gives workers confidence that the system is fair, and it gives the public confidence that decisions are made properly.

Unfortunately, as we have heard, B.C. is moving away from the merit principle in the Public Service. At the same time, the most recent report from the Merit Commissioner shows that in about 10 percent of reviewed appointments, merit was not applied. Those are facts and a concern for many British Columbians.

The Finance Minister has recently stated that the Merit Commissioner’s functions may continue but within government. What I think is missing is that it loses the importance of maintaining strong, independent oversight. I think we need to support public servants at this time.

BCGEU President Paul Finch said: “You cannot effectively oversee yourself. Independent review exists for a reason — to ensure accountability, maintain public confidence and protect from political or internal interference. Eliminating independent oversight undermines transparency and risks eroding trust in the fairness of public service staffing.”

Now, having oversight report to the Legislative Assembly rather than within the executive ensures that we have transparency, and it builds trust. That’s important for another reason, and it’s something that the Merit Commissioner’s scope currently includes. It’s the lens for dismissals.

A 2017 report of the Ombudsperson, Jay Chalke, called Misfire, reviewed the wrongful firings of Ministry of Health employees from 2012 that had far-reaching and harmful consequences. In 2018, the government brought in amendments that gave the Office of the Merit Commissioner responsibility for reviewing just cause dismissals in the Public Service.

At the same time, then Finance Minister Carole James said: “While just cause dismissals are not common in the public service, we want to ensure that when they do occur, there are checks and balances in place. By fulfilling recommendation 27 of the Ombudsperson’s Misfire report, we help to make sure that public servants’ workplace rights are respected.”

[11:35 a.m.]

Now, the merit principle and independent oversight were deemed critical for preventing wrongful dismissals. Why would we move backwards from this as a province, and why would the government, which brought this in, turn backwards on this as well? At a time when the current Finance Minister has pledged to cut 15,000 public sector jobs, ensuring this process is fair is absolutely critical. I would hope that public servants’ rights should be respected if any of these cuts should come through just cause dismissals, just like we heard back in 2018.

This motion on the merit principle being applied to the public service is so important. Government decisions should be fair, respectful and accountable. It’s my hope that this motion should reinforce a principle we should all agree on, that public service jobs should be earned on merit and that this is best achieved by ensuring independent oversight.

As I have said, decisions on dismissals should be based on the exact same principles. Independent officers of the Legislature ensure transparency for the public, and this helps ensure fairness for the people who serve British Columbians every day.

That’s why I support this motion, and I thank the member for Fraser-Nicola for bringing it forward to the House at this time.

Kristina Loewen: I am pleased today to rise in support of Motion 203, brought forward by my colleague. At its core, this motion is about something that should unite every member of this House, trust — trust that the people hired to serve British Columbians are selected because they are the best qualified, the most qualified; trust that promotions are earned, not given; and trust that government decisions are made fairly, transparently and without favour. That is the merit principle.

It is simple. It is essential. The merit principle ensures that individuals are hired and promoted based on their ability to perform the job, not because of who they know, not because of political alignment and not because of personal connections. British Columbians expect nothing less. They expect that the public service, one of the largest and most important institutions in our province, operates with integrity. They expect fairness. They expect accountability. And that’s exactly why independent oversight matters.

Motion 203 affirms that the application of this merit principle in B.C. Public Service should be overseen by an independent officer of this Legislature, not by government itself, because when oversight is independent, it’s credible. When it reports to the Legislature, it’s accountable to all members, not just the executive. And when it operates transparently, it strengthens public confidence in the system as a whole.

Let me be clear. This motion is not a criticism of the professionalism of public servants. British Columbia is home to thousands of dedicated individuals who serve our province with excellence every single day. This motion is about protecting them. It’s about ensuring the system that they work in is fair, that their efforts are recognized and that advancement is based on merit, not influence. Unfortunately, the direction we’re seeing from this government moves us away from that standard.

Through the Budget Measures Implementation Act, the government is eliminating the Office of the Merit Commissioner, an office whose sole purpose is to ensure that appointments to government positions are based on qualifications, an office with a modest annual budget, just $1.7 million. Yet despite its small cost, its value is immense, because it provides something that cannot be replaced easily, independent accountability.

The timing of this decision is deeply concerning. According to the Merit Commissioner’s own reporting, there has been a noticeable increase in cases where merit was not applied. In the most recent year reviewed, 10 percent of appointments examined did not meet the merit standard. The commissioner himself noted that since 2022-23, there has been an increase in merit not applied findings. Further, the most recent audit found the highest rate of flawed hiring processes and outcomes in nearly a decade.

Those aren’t minor observations; those are warning signs. Instead of strengthening oversight and response, government is choosing to eliminate it. We have also heard directly from the Merit Commissioner, who cautioned that the cost of losing independent oversight may ultimately far exceed the savings from eliminating a small oversight body. This is a powerful statement. It’s not just about dollars. It’s about public confidence. It’s about ensuring that British Columbians believe in the fairness of their government.

[11:40 a.m.]

It’s not just the commissioner raising concerns. The president of the BCGEU stated clearly they were not consulted and that they oppose this move. He noted that removing this office effectively eliminates the audit function, leaving government to oversee itself.

At a time when competition for public service roles is increasing and when hiring processes must be above reproach, this is the wrong direction. We should be strengthening oversight, not weakening it.

It’s worth remembering that this office was not created lightly. It was established in 2001 to ensure that merit-based hiring was protected and upheld. In fact, its role was expanded in 2018 to include dismissal reviews, recognizing the importance of fairness across the entire employment life cycle. More recently, a non-partisan, multiparty committee of this Legislature affirmed the importance of maintaining that independence.

This motion does something very reasonable. It does not reinvent the system. It doesn’t undermine the government. It reinforces what should already be a shared commitment that merit matters, that independence matters and that accountability matters, because when we get hiring right, we get better outcomes for British Columbians. We get stronger public services and better decision-making, and we get greater trust in government.

I would urge all members of this House to support Motion 203 to affirm that merit-based hiring must be protected and to ensure that oversight remains where it belongs, with an independent officer of this Legislature.

Bruce Banman: It is, indeed, a pleasure and an honour to stand up and speak in favour of my colleague’s motion “that the House affirms that the application of the merit principle within the B.C. Public Service be overseen by an independent officer of the Legislature.”

I think being hired on qualifications, on merit, on one’s ability to do the job at hand is highly important. Far too often in this House, in governments across the world, it’s easier to hire an insider that agrees with you, to hire a friend, to hire someone that has worked on your campaign, to hire someone that agrees with you politically.

Actually, what’s needed is merit. What’s needed, and what was put into this House to stop that very thing, was the Merit Commissioner, an independent overseer, so that taxpayers’ money was going towards qualified individuals that did not necessarily have a political bias. That’s highly important.

Now, I hear chirps from the other side. If they think that hiring political insiders and friends is a great idea, I encourage them to stand up and say their piece. But they won’t. They will sit there, chirp away, which I would encourage you to shut down, Madam Speaker, because it’s inappropriate, in my opinion.

What’s important, in my opinion, is the fact that merit principles are essential in hiring and promoting individuals based on their ability to actually perform the job, not based on someone’s personal political ties to a politician or a party.

British Columbians have come to expect and rely on the fact that hiring and promotions within the B.C. Public Service are, above all things, fair, transparent and based on qualifications rather than personal or political connections. It makes total sense. We need to know that within the public service, it’s not based on who you know. It’s based on your merit to be able to do the job on behalf of the taxpayers.

[11:45 a.m.]

Independent oversight, which was created and needs to be maintained, strengthens the public’s trust by ensuring that decisions that are made within that particular department are free from political influence or favouritism. It’s an important principle of government that those within the public service are able to do their jobs without political interference.

I give you one of the ones…. Off the top of my head would be the Agricultural Land Commission as an example of areas where people are put in place that are beyond public interference because they have a job to do. They do that job well for the most part. Even though sometimes there are those of us who will disagree with an independent decision of any political employee, they need to be above the ability of having their job put at risk because they disagree with the government at hand.

I would remind that side of the House that they won’t always be in power. This is a slippery slope. If they are all of a sudden allowed to hire their insiders to do jobs, what happens on the other side when we become in power? Is that what they really want? I don’t think it is.

We want to make sure that it is independent. I appreciate the time to be able to speak in favour of this bill.

Trevor Halford: I wasn’t planning on getting up, but I feel the need to now. If this wasn’t so serious, it would be comical. The fact is that you’ve got a government that has overseen one of the worst deficits in the history of this province at a time when British Columbians are struggling to gain employment, when we have rapid exodus out of this province. We’re talking about a Merit Commissioner that is focused on making sure that there is integrity and transparency when it comes to hiring in this province.

I’ve heard other members throughout the opposition speeches. They’ve got comments, which they are more than entitled to. I would challenge them to stand up with their microphone on and speak on this motion. It’s not that hard. They’ve got the time. They’ve got the space. They’re here. Why aren’t they getting up in this House and providing remarks and standing up against this?

In fact, they’re sitting there, and they’re taking their comments. But they will not put their comments on record. You know what? I don’t blame them, because they are embarrassing, absolutely embarrassing. It’s absolutely shameful that they would not support a motion like this.

What have we got? Let’s talk about what this government does with friends and insiders.

Jim Sinclair oversaw one of the worst times at the Fraser Health Authority. What was Jim Sinclair’s background in health care? Can anybody tell me? Zero, zero. And what did he oversee? He oversaw emergency room closures. He saw maternity ward closures, cost overruns, rapid exodus of front-line workers, all because this government, this Premier, that Health Minister, that cabinet, those backbenchers thought that it was better, in the interests of the public, to put their friends and insiders at high-level positions, other than people that could capably do the job.

I disagree. That is wrong. That’s why we’re standing up for this bill.

Deputy Speaker: Member, just a minute. A reminder to stick to the topic of the motion, the merit principle.

Trevor Halford: On the hiring of merit, let’s give another example. Michael Bryant, somebody that was fired from a Crown corporation, where we couldn’t even find out what his severance obligations are, is hired out of the Ministry of Social Development without a minister that’s not even aware.

[11:50 a.m.]

Deputy Speaker: Member, just a reminder. The motion is with respect to the merit principle within the B.C. Public Service and not in reference to other contractors outside of the public service.

Trevor Halford: Sure. I’ll draw it back to this, Madam Chair.

The fact is that this is a position that is being abolished by the NDP. So when we have hirings, like the friend and insider Michael Bryant, who was fired and then rehired at the cost of….

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member.

Trevor Halford: Obviously…. Madam Speaker, I’ll reframe.

Deputy Speaker: Member, just a minute. No.

Trevor Halford: You’re right. You’re right.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member, sit down, please. Just a minute.

Just a reminder, merit within the public service. Thank you.

Continue.

Trevor Halford: Okay. I’ve obviously…. I apologize. I’ve hit a sensitive point, where we’re talking about taxpayer-funded money to people who are…. I understand that. Again, if members of this government don’t want to stand up and speak to this, we will fill that space. That is our obligation and our duty to do.

I think that this motion actually speaks to the heart of what British Columbians are finding troubling with this government. We understand that. We understand why ministers would not want to speak to this, why private members would not want to speak to this. We’ll speak to this. We’ll defend this.

I would challenge anybody from the government side to get up next and speak their piece.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I recognize the member for Fraser-Nicola to close debate.

Tony Luck: I really appreciate the opportunity today to talk about a sensitive issue, obviously, from the other side of the gallery here, about openness, honesty, oversight, accountability — all those things that they apparently are not willing to stand and talk to.

Instead of just hammering us out there and talking, why didn’t some of them stand and delineate exactly what they wanted to bring forward on this bill? This bill is obviously sensitive with them. They know exactly what we’re talking about. There is an unbridled attempt with this government on this side of the House to shut down debate. We’ve seen that in other bills that have been presented in this House this year, and that just continues.

I would just like to say thank you to my colleagues who have stood here. They had the courage to stand up and talk about a very sensitive issue about transparency and openness, accountability, all those things that the government doesn’t seem to have in their lexicon.

They’re not willing to do some of the things that we want to do on this side of the House and make it very, very transparent for the people. The people’s business is the people’s business, as I’ve mentioned before, and we need to make sure that we’re accountable to the public.

I would like to move to close debate on this motion as it stands. I move to close debate on this motion.

Deputy Speaker: All right. Okay. Thank you.

Members, we will now vote on the motion, Motion M203.

Division has been called. Pursuant to Standing Order 25, the division is deferred until 6 p.m. today.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Deputy Speaker: Members, the House is adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:53 a.m.

Contents