You cannot rebuild representation overnight

There is a map on the table in Edmonton that could soon change the political shape of southern Alberta.

If adopted, the Electoral Boundaries Commission’s final report will not eliminate Livingstone Macleod, but it will significantly redraw it. And this is not a minor adjustment. It is a real shift in which communities belong together and how this region is represented moving forward. 

The commission states that no ridings are being added or removed in southern Alberta, but the boundaries around Lethbridge and the surrounding region are being modified to create what it calls a more workable region and to better reflect communities of interest. 

That may be the intent.

But when you actually look at what is being proposed for Livingstone Macleod, it is fair to ask whether that goal has been achieved.

Because what this proposal does is fundamentally change the composition of the riding.

What is being lost is significant. The proposed changes remove all of the Foothills County portion of the riding, along with the part of Willow Creek north of Highway 520. That includes communities like Nanton, Stavely and Claresholm, places that have long been connected through agriculture, transportation corridors, and shared economic interests.

Those communities are shifted into a new riding centred around High River, Vulcan and Siksika.

In practical terms, that means the northern portion of Livingstone Macleod, the High River and Foothills connection that has historically been part of this riding, is gone.

What is being added pulls the riding in a completely different direction. The proposal brings in almost all of Lethbridge County, excluding the City of Lethbridge and a small portion assigned elsewhere. That includes communities like Coaldale, Picture Butte and the surrounding agricultural region, along with much of the rural Lethbridge County area.

What remains at the core is familiar. The Crowsnest Pass, Pincher Creek, Fort Macleod, Ranchland and Waterton area continue to anchor the riding.

So the tradeoff is clear. Livingstone Macleod loses High River country, Nanton, Stavely, Claresholm and Foothills County. It gains Coaldale, Picture Butte and most of Lethbridge County.

That is not just a boundary change.

That is a shift in identity.

Because ridings are not just about population counts. They are about how communities connect. They are about where people work, where they shop, where they access services, and whether one representative can realistically understand and advocate for all of them.

The commission itself acknowledges that effective representation is not just about numbers, but about geography and communities of interest. 

And that is where this proposal starts to fall apart.

Because it is difficult to see how removing long connected communities in the north, while adding an entirely different cluster of communities to the south, creates a more natural or cohesive riding.

It may balance population, but it does not necessarily strengthen representation. This is the point the Alberta government needs to seriously consider before adopting these changes, because once these lines are set, they define representation for years to come.

At the same time, there is another reality created by this proposal. If these boundaries are adopted, our MLA, Chelsae Petrovic, could find herself living just outside the new riding boundary. That is not a criticism. It is the direct result of the proposed boundary changes. But it raises a question that matters far more than geography. What actually defines representation?

When you look at what has been delivered across this riding during her time as MLA, the record is substantial.

There has been meaningful support for education, including $481,595 to the Literary for Life Foundation in High River and $439,642 to the Willow Creek Community Adult Learning Society in Fort Macleod.

There has been strong investment in agriculture and rural municipalities, including more than $1.4 million in Agricultural Service Board grants and $802,981 to agricultural societies and organizations.

There has been significant investment in Indigenous communities, including more than $13.7 million to Piikani Nation for economic capacity building and irrigation, along with funding for community safety initiatives.

There has been funding for families and social supports, including $5.4 million in Family and Community Support Services across the riding and $323,077 for family violence supports through Rowan House Society.

There has been support for employment and workforce development, including more than $418,000 in career and employment services and over $460,000 in job grant funding.

There has been investment in public safety and victim services, environmental support through the Waterton Biosphere Reserve, and more than $2.3 million in tourism funding.

And there has been major infrastructure investment, including more than $8 million in transportation funding, nearly $18 million in municipal water and wastewater projects, and more than $14 million tied to the Nanton regional water supply. 

That is not passive representation. That is work.

But beyond funding, there is something else that matters just as much. Presence.

As a newspaper covering this region, we see who shows up. We have seen Chelsae Petrovic at events across the Crowsnest Pass and throughout the riding. We have seen her in the community, engaged, approachable, and accessible. That kind of visibility matters in a rural riding where distance can easily become a barrier between elected officials and the people they represent.

Representation is not just about announcements, it is about being there, and that is something no boundary line can create.

Which brings us back to the decision ahead.

If these boundaries are adopted and Chelsae Petrovic finds herself just outside the new riding, she could still run in Livingstone Macleod. And she should. Because at a time when the riding itself is being reshaped, losing some communities and gaining others, continuity matters. Understanding matters. Relationships matter.

The people in this riding, both those who remain and those who may be newly added, deserve someone who already understands rural southern Alberta, who has already built connections, and who has already demonstrated a willingness to show up and do the work.

Maps can redraw a riding, but they cannot rebuild representation overnight. As the Alberta government considers whether to adopt these changes, it needs to ask a hard question. 

Does this new version of Livingstone Macleod actually make sense?

Because from here, on the ground, it does not, and that is something worth getting right.