Fixing the total number is a fairly arbitrary decision. Parliament worked well when it was 265 members. It worked well when it was 295. I think that's a matter of making a decision. In fact, most of the other Houses that Professor Franks referred to have an absolute number. They don't engage in this endless growth exercise that we do.
In terms of these external ones, I think it's only reasonable to think that each of the separate territories has one seat. The constitution of course guarantees that the very small maritime provinces have a Senate rule. That can't be avoided. I think you work within that and, in a sense, you deduct that number from whatever total you decide and allocate the rest proportionally. You could do that if the House were 300 or you could do it if it were 400 or 200. The House works at about 300 now. Maybe it's time to say, enough.
I'm just challenging the committee to face up to this question. Rather than adding 30 seats, which, as I say, is 75 more than when I started teaching only three decades ago, do we want to see a House that's that much larger again in another 20 or 30 years? Well, we will or we'll come close to it unless we actually stop and think for a minute about what we're doing.