That's a good question. I don't know. The one thing.... I was discussing this earlier. When we approach this issue, we need to think of it as an issue of freedom, ultimately. That might sound silly, but it's not. It's ironic, but freedom requires constraints; if you were to have an ultimate lack of constraints, you wouldn't have freedom; you'd have chaos. We need constraints in our lives. Anyone who's ever had to force themselves to go to work knows that you need constraints in order to be free. If you want to pay your mortgage, you have to go to work. I'm sorry. I don't like it either, but that's the way it works.
In elections, it's the same thing. We limit how much money you can spend, because that maintains the integrity of an election. We limit how you can get on the ballot, because it maintains the integrity of the election. We try to make sure that third parties or foreign parties aren't unduly influencing the election, and so on. Part of that is making sure that you have good constraints, and part of it is making sure that your elections are as simple as possible.
Again, one core virtue of Canadian elections is that they're very simple and mechanical. In many ways, they're run the same way today that they were run in the 19th century and the early 20th century, with better access to the ballot, thank God, but the mechanics are similar. Those constraints are effective at running good elections, but when you turn it into a farce and make it open season on exploiting loopholes, then I think you invite activity that will further undermine it. So, at the risk of committing the slippery slope fallacy, when things like this pop up, you have to deal with them, because I worry it invites further shenanigans that are going to undermine our elections.
I'll say it again: This is the worst possible time to be messing around with elections. We could lose the institutions that bind this country. We've seen them lost in other countries and undermined here in the past. It's just not something to screw around with.