I'd be happy to.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to thank the committee for the opportunity to give testimony.
I want to start out by thanking the commission for producing numerous proposals and allowing public commentary on those proposals. I think that is a very good thing. In my oral testimony, I'm only going to provide a summary of the written testimony that I've already given to the committee, because of the time limitations.
Let me start with the Hamilton area. I would like to go on the record as supporting the second of three proposals put forward by the commission as best reflecting the communities of interest in the city of Hamilton.
Regarding the Algoma area, I would like to go on the record as supporting those who believe the commission's first proposals best reflect the requirement to have manageable geographic size of electoral districts.
I wanted to deal with those two first.
The next one I want to discuss is the proposed Bay of Quinte electoral district, and I would like to support the request from the municipal council of Prince Edward County to appropriately name that electoral district Prince Edward—Quinte. The reason for that is because Bay of Quinte, which is what the commission has proposed so far, does not reflect that only part of the Bay of Quinte is in the proposed riding, named, for now, Bay of Quinte. In fact, a better description of that riding would be Quinte, for the part that is north of the Bay of Quinte—Belleville and Trenton—and Prince Edward for the part of Prince Edward County that's south of the Bay of Quinte. I live near that area and I know that's how people think of that area, so I think it would be a better name. I have a letter of support from the municipal council for that, which I will be happy to give to the committee.
Finally, I would like to address issues with the electoral district of Kingston and the Islands. The commission has proposed that the part of the city of Kingston north of the 401 be moved to a new riding called Lanark—Frontenac. My original submission to the commission last year was to support their initial proposal to leave Kingston and the Islands unchanged. I would like to request that again today, to repeat something I already gave in writing to the commission. I can leave behind a copy of an e-mail and a response from the commission with that request.
The reason for leaving the city of Kingston whole inside the riding of Kingston and the Islands is that I believe the city of Kingston forms a strong community of interest. The people who have come to me believe it should not be broken up. I do have a number of e-mails that people have sent in that I can leave with the committee to pass on to the commission.
People north of the 401 go to school and work south of the 401, and vice versa. There are public services associated with the municipality that are shared. There's also the Little Cataraqui Creek watershed that is shared between the city of Kingston north of the 401 and south of the 401. Historically, the city of Kingston has always been inside one riding, since Sir John A. MacDonald first ran in the riding in the first election after Confederation.
In terms of community support, I will leave with the committee and the commission a letter of support from the member of the provincial parliament, John Gerretsen, but I do understand the municipal councillor for the north of Kingston and for the east of Kingston have another plan that my colleague, Mr. Reid, will discuss. However, the mayor of Kingston is remaining neutral. I would simply acknowledge that.
In terms of the demographic consequences, it is true that Kingston and the Islands would have a lot more people than Lanark—Frontenac. If Kingston were kept whole, Lanark—Frontenac would still have 90,000 people, which is not unusual for a rural riding like that.
I see that my time is running out. I'll be happy to answer any questions to clarify some of these points. Thanks.