Harper v Canada (AG), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 827, 2004 SCC 33, is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada wherein the Court ruled that Canada Elections Act's spending limits on third party election advertising did violate section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms but was justified under Section One of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Background The 1974 Election Expenses Act prohibited third party interest groups, defined as any individual or group other than a candidate or a registered political party, from spending money in promoting or opposing candidates and parties. In 1997, the Supreme Court ruled in Libman v. Attorney General of Quebec that restricting third party spending has a valid object "to permit an informed choice to be made by ensuring that some positions are not buried by others." The Liberal Party of Canada's government introduced Bill C-2 which became the new Canada Elections Act in 2002. Bill C-2 limited third party election advertising maximum spending to $150,000 nationwide, of which a maximum of $3,000 can be spent on a given electoral district. Stephen Harper, then president of the National Citizens Coalition (he became Prime Minister in 2006), launched a constitutional challenge in June 2000 to Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta in Edmonton. The court held that sections 350 and 351 of the Canada Elections Act were unconstitutional. The Alberta Court of Appeal, in a 2-1 decision, ruled on December 16, 2002, that all provisions on third party activities, except for section 358, violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Ruling The majority was written by Justice Bastarache with Justices Iacobucci, Arbour, LeBel, Deschamps and Fish concurring. The court found that, though the spending limits infringe upon section 2b of the Charter, the law is reasonable and is justified in light of section 1. The majority concluded that the objective of the spending limits is electoral fairness. The law has an effect in creating "a level playing field for those who wish to engage in the electoral discourse, enabling voters to be better informed". In addition, section 3 of the Charter is not infringed because the right of meaningful participation in electoral process includes the right to participate in an informed manner. Without spending limits, individuals or groups can dominate the discussion and prevent opposing views from being heard. Dissent Chief Justice McLachlin and Justice Major wrote for the dissent