I'm an Ontario member myself, and in the very first question you were asked today, Madame Folco spoke very eloquently about her concern that rural Ontario would be left out, given the demographic weight of Toronto.
I'll make the obvious assertion that if we're trying to seek one vote, one value, equal weighting of votes, you can't slice Ontario up into districts--be it two, three, four, or five--without underweighting the rural areas, because there are fewer people there. I say this as the representative of a rural Ontario municipality. The largest town in my constituency has fewer than 10,000 people, and we're spread over an area the size of the state of Connecticut. So while I'm very conscious of the concerns of rural people, believe me, I can't figure out how you overcome that basic fact.
What does strike me is that as you get smaller and smaller districts--if you go into four districts for Ontario instead of one large district--you start losing the value of that proportionality. That is to say, people could get elected based on the fact that they appeal to a community within the province. Obviously in some cases they might be people who appeal to rural voters. In other cases it might be someone whose appeal is based on the fact that they represent some other minority, say Franco-Ontarians, aboriginal interests, or whatever the case might be. As is the case in Australia, it might be the people who represent the environmental movement. The Green Party has been quite successful in the Australian Senate, although it's frozen out entirely from their lower house.
I guess I've really given you more of a comment than a question, but I'll leave it to you to respond.