Premier Christy Clark arrives at the Legislative Assembly for question period in Victoria last week.Chad Hipolito/The Globe and Mail
The B.C. conflict of interest commissioner has ruled that it is not a conflict for Premier Christy Clark to take part in exclusive access-for-cash fundraisers with wealthy donors to the Liberal Party, and that it is also not a conflict for her to receive an annual $50,000 cheque drawn from the funds that the Liberal Party raises at such events and through other fundraising activities.
Okay. Then change the conflict of interest rules.
The commissioner, Paul Fraser, is correct when he says that there is no straight line between the money donated by corporate and private interests, and the Premier's bank account. He is also right to say that the amount of the "leader's allowance" the party transfers to Ms. Clark is not dependent on the number of fundraisers she attends on the party's behalf.
And yet her activities are obviously ethically questionable, and reeking with the appearance of conflict of interest. A significant portion of the Premier's salary top-up comes from money contributed by party donors. That's because the B.C. Liberal Party's revenue, out of which it pays Ms. Clark, comes almost entirely from large donations by corporations and wealthy individuals. There's a push to get money out of politics across the country, and B.C. is where reform is most needed.
Under the current rules, the Premier is not doing anything wrong. Donations go into the Liberal Party's general funds, and who knows whose donations are being used to pay her. But that hardly exonerates the practice. It just shows how lax the current rules are. As long as Ms. Clark doesn't accept a bag of money marked "For the Premier's Personal Use," she's broken no law.
Ms. Clark should only be paid by taxpayers through the public purse. This is the best way of assuring voters that she works in their interests full-time. And it's the only way to be confident that, if she's implored to show favour to donors, she can't be persuaded with the rejoinder, Hey, they help pay your salary.
We aren't alone in seeing impropriety. No other premier except one, Brad Wall of Saskatchewan, receives a party stipend.
And yet Ms. Clark remains defiant. She won't change until the rules force her to, or until public pressure requires it. She refuses to see the problem inherent in her having two paymasters where there is only supposed to be one – the taxpayer.