It's been tough trying to decide for whom to vote. My riding, Winnipeg Centre, is according to The Globe and Mail, Canada's poorest, "encompassing much of the rundown central core."

Loyal readers of this column know I do not advocate better-funded social programs, but rather wish to see free-market, entrepreneurial activity uplift incomes and bring better employment options.

If this is the heart of the city, Winnipeg's got a bum ticker; which is why I've been a relentless advocate of a triple-bypass surgery: the three-line, 40-kilometre subway system proposed for Winnipeg in 1959. With three new high-capacity arteries flowing through Winnipeg's heart, there will be sufficient blood -- people -- for the body to return to health: higher property values and proper urban building standards will mean the erection of multi-storey, mixed-use (sidewalk level stores with apartment dwellings above) buildings -- ideally matching the architectural traditions of Winnipeg's early boom period of 1890–1920 — in place of the innumerable empty lots, parking lots, strip malls and gas stations that disrupt storefront continuity, thwart walkability, and rob the few remaining old, mixed-use buildings of their proper context.

 From as early as 1900 to as late as 1955, the streets of Winnipeg, despite our climate, were alive with pedestrians; following the 1955 removal of our vast street-car system, a half-century of urban bustle was wiped out in 20 years. By 1975, Main Street was next to worthless and Portage Avenue was coming undone. Incredibly, few policymakers in Winnipeg today see the connection between quality public transportation and pedestrian activity.

The Conservatives, for all their rhetoric about "traditional values," ought to be keen about a giant public works project such as the Wilson subway to restore the lost glory  of Winnipeg's once-mighty downtown, but seem likelier to cut gasoline taxes to conserve the automotive way of life that has made car storage a primary land-use downtown. The provincial NDP proved hostile to public transit projects yet friendly to the suburban sprawl industry — would their federal counterparts be any different? The Liberals, who last year tried throwing at Winnipeg millions for public transit that we didn't even ask for, seem as through they would provide a billion or two for a subway if we demanded it loudly enough, but no matter how nice a fellow Ray St. Germain might be, I can't countenance voting for country singer to represent an urban district.

Enter Gary Gervais, Green Party of Canada. When I heard that he was screening the documentary The End of Suburbia, which I had been itching to see, at the Ellice Theatre, I decided to attend with members of my advocacy group, Transit Riders' Union of Winnipeg. The gist of The End of Suburbia was was that we're going to run out of oil soon, and the suburban way of life would come to an end, to be replaced with a return to dense, walkable, urban communities serviced with electric public transit -- rather like Winnipeg prior to 1955.

After the documentary, Gervais, who operates an ESL school, was supposed to take questions from the audience -- there were about 30 of us -- but he hadn't yet arrived, so I queried his agent, Loren Braul, about Gervais' stance on public transport in Winnipeg.

"I live in the West End," I said. "I can walk downtown in less time than it takes for me to wait for a bus."

"That's your preference," said Braul. " I ride a bike and create my own warmth; you prefer the warmth of a bus."

Braul's snotty response to my query was nearly sufficient to send me out the door, but I decided to stay, for I was keen to quiz the candidate, who eventually arrived.

Gervais was wearing an unbuttoned suit without a tie, a wild-patterned shirt alluding to a vague hipness. He took my question.

"Well, I supported the BRT plan," he said. Rob Galston, TRU Winnipeg's blogger (riseandsprawl.blogspot.com) and I looked at each other. What's "green" about burning more diesel?

"Have you heard of the Wilson plan -- Winnipeg's first rapid-transit proposal?" I asked. He hadn't, and when I went on to explain it, he replied, "How are we supposed to pay for this?"

"Expanding our tax base through growth in population and in property values. Reaching a population of one million with a minimum of suburban expansion. Subways have paid for themselves everywhere else; why wouldn't they in Winnipeg? Cities in Russia and Ukraine, during the 1990s, at a time when these countries were supposedly undergoing economic meltdowns, managed to build and expand their subway systems."

"Yes," Gervais conceded. "It's economically possible to build a subway. But it's a matter of where we want to put our resources."

Hardly a satisfying answer, but good enough. Gervais has my reluctant vote, if only because of his good taste in documentaries.