A number of factors are involved. In particular, we see that, internationally, Canada is less egalitarian-minded than most federations when it comes to its distribution. I think that only Brazil, Argentina and Spain are even less so than we are. I think that's justification enough for us to move further toward population-based representation. I have also noticed by comparing Canada with the rest of the world that there is little support for the idea that being recognized as a nation entitles a group to better representation.
When it comes to increasing the number of MPs, international comparisons indicate that, the more members there are, the more the value of Parliament's role is somewhat reduced. A very specific example comes to mind, that of the State of New Hampshire House of Representatives, in the U. S. New Hampshire, with a population of over a million, is represented by 400 members. In contrast, California, which has more people than Canada, has about 80 members. The fact is that the 400 New Hampshire members work part time or even very little and have extremely limited resources. Obviously, when a state has 400 parliamentarians, it's hard to provide them with significant resources. There are only 80 members in California, but as anyone would tell you, they are very professional legislators because, owing to their small number, they can be provided with a lot more resources, thus enabling them to do their work.
That's all I have to say.