I completely agree that MPs represent their constituents, both in the riding and in Ottawa. In fact, that's one of the reasons I'm arguing for such an overrepresentation for the territories. I think if we counted up the 10 most northern ridings in Canada, we would probably be covering off over 60% of the land area. So in order to be effective in those sorts of ridings, where there are such huge distances, you need to have more representation in order to be effective. I completely agree.
On the other hand, I don't think it would be effective to have a House of 600 MPs—yet that would be more effective for our ridings. So what is the right balance point? There's my question to you.
When we looked at it, we felt that the size of the House now is about right. In the proposal that's put forward by the Conservatives, the average riding size would now go 102,000 to 93,000. That's not a significant difference. It's better in terms of constituency work, but it's not a gigantic change. Whereas, the change in the House itself, from 308 to 338, is quite significant. That's a bigger...[Technical difficulty--Editor].