I confess that I am not deeply fluent in the case, so I don't know the jurisprudential argument for it. It strikes me as an entirely reasonable limit of $1,000.
What I will say is that Canadian elections are cheap. Perhaps I don't actually know whether MPs feel like they're spending a lot of money or not, but I do know that many of you raise more money than you can spend. We also have examples of candidates who can win without spending a lot of money. I think it's great that, for the most part, we put pretty serious caps on our election spending, so that who wins is not determined purely by who raises more money. Where those exact limits are, Mr. Calkins, I'm not sure. I do think that, clearly, the $1,000 deposit, plus changes in the signatures or the ease of signatures and the fact that one can be an agent for multiple candidates, probably makes the ballot more permeable than is desirable, as evidenced by the ballots in the last election.