The Debate over Party Finance Reform - a look back...

As I'm doing research on party finance reform, I came across the debate over Bill C-24 (Chretien's election finance reforms) from 2003. I couldn't help but notice Stephen Harper's comments on the Bill. It should be noted that the Canadian Alliance opposed the bill.

Here's what then Opposition Leader Stephen Harper said:

Obviously with this kind of history, our party is very interested in real measures that would avoid or lessen undue influence from the large donations of corporations, unions, associations or individuals. It is obviously something that we would be interested in.

However, by its very structure, Bill C-24, the campaign finance reform legislation proposed by the government, while it hints at some improvements, in the end it fails to be the type of positive reform legislation that we can support. It does not, and if we are realistic, it cannot end corruption or inappropriate influence in government. Our fear is that it will serve to weaken an already fragile democratic framework. (Hansard, Feb. 11, 2003)

He then goes on to say:

Let us be clear. We could support, in principle, the provisions of this bill to limit corporate and union contributions. What we are against is replacing corporate and union contributions with forced subsidies from taxpayers. Political parties should learn to depend mostly on contributions from their members.

Frankly, we find it outrageous that the Liberals are describing this bill as a democratic reform. There is nothing democratic about forcing people to give money without their consent. Furthermore, many of these so-called reforms to strengthen our democracy have the exact opposite effect.

From this my only question is: If public financing of political parties was not appropriate back then for Mr. Harper, why doesn't C-2, the Accountability Act, remove public financing from the Election Financing Act?