I think I understand your viewpoint here, and I appreciate that you said the real changes were to ridings other than your own. Acknowledging that shows the balance in your presentation today.
I'd like to actually talk a little about the removal of Marpole and moving it to Richmond Centre, because I'm going to address it more broadly than that.
First of all, with regard to it—and this is from page 18 of the report:
Many residents of the municipalities touched by this previous proposal frankly and helpfully questioned it as contrary to historical pattern and community of interest. While the Cities of Richmond and Delta have shared representation in the past, this solution was opposed by presenters on both sides of the Fraser River.
They originally proposed something. Everyone came out against it, similar, it seems, to the MPs here. Page 18 also says—and this is interesting, especially with regard to Mr. Noormohamed's comments:
it was suggested that the urban nature of Richmond Centre, the success of Canada Line transportation, and the location of two bridge crossings of the north arm of the Fraser River supported including lands in the historic Vancouver area of Marpole within the existing Richmond Centre district. Crossing the Fraser River is a significant step in the design of an electoral district. The Commission considers that historical patterns of Marpole and Richmond and communities of interest between neighbourhoods are sufficiently strong to support this crossing.
I totally understand, Mr. Miao, Mr. Noormohamed and even you, Minister, that you are all saying that there are no communities of interest and that the submissions were only one-sided, in your favour, for your argument. However, it clearly says right here that that's just not the case. The case is that the Richmond ridings didn't have the population, and that there are corridors and traditional communities of interest, and people said that to the commission. How do you respond?
Maybe we'll go to Mr. Noormohamed first.