Thank you very much.
Hello again to committee members, who may remember me from the last hour, when we were discussing the Saskatchewan redistribution.
I'm going to make a similar argument, which is about the idea of trying, as much as possible, to have fewer urban-rural split ridings. That is not to say there would be none. However, I think it is a reasonable goal of the redistribution process to try to have urban ridings and rural ridings, without the split, where possible. I think that's a significant division when it comes to communities of interest.
The second proposal for Elmwood—Transcona from the Manitoba redistribution is to go beyond the Perimeter Highway—in Winnipeg, there's a highway that encircles the entire city—and to take in the communities of Dugald...and not quite Oakbank, but going north almost up to Oakbank.
We already have an urban-rural split riding in northeast Winnipeg. It's the riding of Kildonan—St. Paul. There are adjustments being made to the riding of Kildonan—St. Paul in this redistribution as well, and the riding of Provencher, all of which are adjacent.
My simple point is that I think it would make more sense to extend the northern boundary in Elmwood—Transcona somewhat along the river in order to capture a similar amount of population, but within the city limits, and then to take the area outside of the city that the commission is proposing to put into Elmwood—Transcona and assign it instead to Kildonan—St. Paul. Because there is so much population...and you go up street by street on the northern boundary of Elmwood—Transcona and the border between Elmwood—Transcona and Kildonan—St. Paul, I think it would mean very little in terms of population numbers. You can readily move the northern boundary of Elmwood—Transcona to a point that's commensurate with the amount of population that the commission has proposed outside of the city limits.
It would mean that the riding of Kildonan—St. Paul would continue to be an urban-rural split riding. There are certainly similarities between some of the rural communities that are already in Kildonan—St. Paul and the communities just outside the city of Winnipeg that the commission is proposing to include in Elmwood—Transcona. I think it's a pretty clean solution. Instead of having two urban-rural split ridings, you would continue to have one urban-rural split riding and one fully urban riding, which I think makes a lot of sense.
Prior to the riding of Elmwood—Transcona being created, and its predecessor Winnipeg—Transcona, Transcona was included in a riding by the name of Winnipeg—Birtle. When Winnipeg—Birtle was decommissioned, if you will, as a riding, in favour of Winnipeg—Transcona and what now is largely Kildonan—St. Paul, I think that was a very intentional decision by the boundary redistribution commission at that time. It was to recognize that there were significant communities of interest within northeast Winnipeg that were deserving of their own urban representation. To the extent that there would continue to be a rural-urban split riding—because the rest of northeast Winnipeg didn't have enough population to create an urban-only riding—you would try to have one urban riding representing a significant portion of northeast Winnipeg, and then beyond that, have one urban-rural split riding.
I think this is moving away from that decision. I don't see a lot of virtue in creating more urban-rural ridings when there is no need for that. I think the solution here is rather simple.
If there is time remaining, Madam Chair, I'm happy to give that back to the committee.