Recently the CTF testified before a parliamentary committee studying proposed changes to the Canada Elections Act, Bill C-2. It is a dangerous piece of legislation. It stifles free speech, entrenches power with the five existing political parties and discourages citizen involvement in the electoral process - just to name a few of its shortcomings.

The most blatant transgression of individual freedom is found in its sections dealing with the issue of third party advertising. First, let's dismiss this pejorative term. A union, a chamber of commerce, the local community association, a taxpayer group, or the local 4-h club is not a third party.

Such groups are not interlopers to an exclusive contract between voters and political parties. Citizen advocacy groups have every right to communicate with voters during an election campaign. But Bill C-2 limits such groups to spending $150,000 during a campaign. While this amount may seem generous, it works out to a mere $498.34 per riding if applied across all 301 ridings.

Meanwhile, political parties can spend upwards of $25 million when all expenditures are factored in. Sound like an even playing field to you Hardly. This is censorship. During our testimony we noted that a citizens group couldn't even purchase a quarter page ad in Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver or Red Deer for this amount. The committee chair, MP Derrick Lee - and a nice enough chap - challenged our assertion. The next day we faxed him information showing that a quarter page ad in his riding is over $1,100!

We also showed that the amount of money spent does not influence election outcomes but made it very clear that citizens have the constitutional right to express their freedom of expression and exercising this right can be a costly exercise.

Another provision in Bill C-2 states that parties need to run at least 50 candidates to be classified as official parties. But this runs contrary to the parliamentary definition for official party status - 12 seats. Somehow, MPs fail to see this contradiction.

Voters are competent enough to distinguish between frivolous and serious candidates: they don't need a law to help them do this. In New Zealand or Germany where 35 or more candidates/parties may be on the ballot yet voters do not complain that the choice is overwhelming.

Finally, we pointed out that election reimbursements represent another barrier to meaningful and new participation in the electoral process.

CTF analysis reveals that after the 1997 federal election, 1,672 candidates filed reports and a record number, 801 candidates to be precise, were eligible to receive campaign reimbursements. In fact, taxpayers forked over $16.5 million to these 801 candidates for an average grant of $20,630. This represents an 11% increase from 1993 when 714 successful and defeated candidates received $14.8 million from taxpayers for an average grant of $20,815.

In 1993, of the 714 candidates who received reimbursements, 710 of them ran for one of the five major parties (Liberal, Reform, Bloc, NDP, or PC). And in 1997, only two candidates of the 801 who received reimbursements fell outside of the five major parties. Such a system does not serve to encourage new candidates, it only serves to entrench power with the established parties.

Bill C-2 was drafted on the premise that voters are stupid. We disagree. As a famous Russian dissident once wrote "it is time to remember that the first thing we belong to is humanity. And humanity is separated from the animal world by thought and speech and they should naturally be free. If they are fettered, we go back to being animals."

If only government MPs could see that voters are indeed human.