Would Government Ministers Pass a Merit-Based Hire? If Not, Why Not?
British Columbia once funded an independent watchdog whose job was straightforward: make sure public-service hiring is based on merit, not political patronage. That watchdog—the Office of the Merit Commissioner—is now on the chopping block.
And that raises the question taxpayers should be asking out loud:
If we need an independent referee to protect merit in hiring inside government, why don’t we demand anything like that standard for the people who run government—especially the ones in charge of the money?
Merit for the bureaucracy… politics for the top jobs
Here’s the reality: in our Westminster system, ministers aren’t “hired” the way civil servants are. They’re politically appointed by the Premier from among elected MLAs. That’s how cabinet works: regional balance, caucus management, ideological alignment, communications skill, seniority—pick your mix.
But that “it’s political” explanation doesn’t answer the public’s core concern:
Does the person’s background and track record match the job?
And if the job is Finance—the job that frames the province’s fiscal future—what standard is being applied?
The Finance test: results matter
A merit-based system doesn’t judge intentions. It judges outcomes, competence, and fit.
In 2021/22, the province reported a $1.3-billion surplus.
In Budget 2026, the province forecasts a $13.3-billion deficit for 2026/27—and continuing deficits after that.
That is a staggering swing across a single five-year window. You can argue causes. You can argue priorities. But you can’t argue this:
If a private company forecast ever-increasing losses with no credible plan back to profit, its leadership would be replaced—or the business would fail.
Which brings us back to the “merit” question:
If Finance Minister were a real job posting—“responsible for the province’s fiscal plan, debt trajectory, and long-term affordability”—what would we expect to see on the résumé?
A Finance Minister “merit list” taxpayers would recognize
A serious merit-based hire for the top finance job would normally require:
Proven large-budget management (not just program announcements—real cost control and variance management)
Debt and interest-rate literacy (refinancing risk, debt-service sensitivity, long-term liabilities)
Forecasting discipline (assumptions that survive contact with reality, and transparent downside scenarios)
Willingness to say “no” (prioritization under constraint, not permanent expansion)
Respect for independent oversight (Auditor General culture; accountability as a reflex, not an annoyance)
You don’t need to hate any politician to admit this: cabinet selection does not require those qualifications. The public is asked to assume them.
Now add the merit watchdog being removed
Here’s the second layer of the problem: while taxpayers are staring at record deficits, the government is also moving to eliminate the independent office designed to guard against patronage in public-service hiring.
Finance Minister Brenda Bailey justified the move by saying the Merit Commissioner reviewed 276 cases and found “zero examples of political patronage,” and that the change comes from an “efficiency review” because the office has “completed its work.”
But that logic is backwards.
Independent oversight isn’t a trophy you throw away after a clean audit. It’s a guardrail you keep because the incentives for patronage never go away. Seatbelts aren’t useless because you didn’t crash yesterday.
And if the oversight is moved “back into the system,” the public is left with the same uneasy conclusion: government is being asked to oversee itself. The whole reason independence exists is to avoid that.
So why don’t we apply merit to ministers?
Because the system isn’t built to. Ministers are political executives. But “not built to” doesn’t mean “can’t be improved.”
We could adopt reforms that keep parliamentary government intact while importing the spirit of merit into the biggest portfolios:
Publish a skills standard for key ministries (Finance, Health, Public Safety): what competencies the Premier claims are required.
Hold a public, non-binding confirmation hearing for Finance: assumptions, debt guardrails, deficit path, contingency usage, and transparency commitments.
Create a quarterly fiscal scorecard the public can read: forecast error, debt-service trend, contingency drawdowns, and program overruns—tracked in plain English.
Stop dismantling independent oversight while asking the public to trust internal checks.
That would be a start. Not a perfect system—just an honest one.
The point isn’t personal. It’s structural.
You can like Brenda Bailey or dislike her. You can like the government or oppose it. That’s not the issue.
The issue is that we demand merit in the hiring of the people who run government machinery, but we accept political appointment without a merit screen for the people who decide the fiscal direction of the province.
And when the fiscal plan forecasts record deficits as far as the eye can see, that question becomes unavoidable:
If this were a merit-based hire, would the decision-makers be confident enough to show the hiring criteria?
Because in the private sector, the consequences land fast. In government, the consequences land slowly—on someone else.
No, the province can’t technically go bankrupt, but the taxpayers can.
Comments
Post a Comment
Thank you for your input. Your comment will appear once reviewed.