If we want to be Darwinian, that's fine, but let's not be Darwinian selectively. All struggling franchises should go then, period, no matter where or who they are. If we are going to be Darwinian then years ago we should have closed Pittsburgh, Detroit, Edmonton, Ottawa, Calgary, and Chicago. All of them years ago ought to have been shut down when they were struggling from low attendance and were bleeding financially. Those teams were given support by the NHL and wouldn't have survived without it. Why should we start being Darwinian now, if we weren't before? Or do those Darwinian policies you want conveniently not apply to Canadian or Original Six teams? Those teams are doing well now, but every one of those teams for multiple years sometime over the past 20 years or so needed external support to survive and had lower attendance than Phoenix is having now. Where were all those Canadian Darwinians back then? I'll tell you where they were, they were all demanding NHL (and public ) subsidies to keep their teams going, and understandably so.
Now I really have no problem with moving some of these struggling franchises, but move them because it is in the best interests of hockey, not because you want cheaper hockey tickets.
Look at what increases the overall revenue pie of the NHL over time. Would moving that team cannibalize other NHL teams, thus not really increasing overall NHL revenue? How does that revenue stream look over the next 15-30 years? Lastly, and certainly not least, does the move create new hockey fans and players? If you can use these criteria to justify moving a team or two to Canada, then I'm all for it, and frankly, I think you can.
When people say "deserves a hockey team" that is just a thinly veiled Canadian nationalist statement. Based on the criteria the OP created, then neither Calgary, Edmonton, nor Ottawa (amongst others) deserved hockey teams either, which I doubt was his intent.