Proposed Electoral Boundary Changes

The provincial electoral boundary commission released a draft report with proposed changes in the boundaries for our MLA's. This is one of those issues that has many pros and cons when you compare the current system to the proposed system.

City Council voted a few months ago to advocate for a purely urban riding plus one that covers the city and the county. Currently, the boundary splits Grande Prairie in half between the north and south of the city and both MLA's also have the responsibility to represent their rural constituents. Thus we have the Grande Prairie-Smoky and Grande Prairie-Wapiti ridings. The proposed changes will have one MLA representing approximately 80% of the city and another MLA covering the remaining 20% plus a rural area almost twice the size, previously required to be covered by either of our MLA's. The drawing of these boundaries is loosely based on covering a population of 40,900 people.

As a city resident, it makes sense to have an MLA dedicated to representing urban concerns. The provincial government tends to favour rural municipalities in matters of funding. The only exceptions to this are Edmonton and Calgary, which are by far, the largest cities in Alberta and have the most (and therefore strongest) representation at the Alberta Legislature. What our government fails to understand is that Alberta is an urbanizing province that faces struggles in growth as our towns develop into sustainable cities. Rural counties rely on services provided by towns and cities who end up spending significant amounts of dollars in infrastructure development and maintenance.

So does the answer lie in changing our boundaries for the MLA's? In my opinion, I don't think that boundary changes will accomplish any significant changes for us in Grande Prairie. It's possible that the effect will be completely opposite of what we initially expect. The problem is that we need to start thinking of ourselves as a region instead of one city, surrounded by towns and villages, surrounded by a county and MD. Changing the boundaries creates another "us versus them" scenario that is not healthy for regional cooperation.

In the current boundary configuration, we have 2 MLA's elected to represent Grande Prairie and region. Each of these MLA represent roughly 25,000 residents of the city and 15,000 in the county. I have been informed that when an MLA is assigned a Minister's position (essentially a promotion), the job tends to keep the MLA quite busy travelling around province and the country. His/her constituents almost never see their elected representative. We have been fortunate in our area to have a minister come out of our region quite regularly. Unfortunately, we lose contact with that MLA. However, because there are 2 MLA's in Grande Prairie, we have the advantage of contacting the other representative who can still pass on concerns because they are colleagues as opposed to adversaries.

Under the proposed changes, we take the chance of losing one of our representatives because this MLA would only represent 10,000 residents of the city and 30,000 in the county. The perspective of this MLA would be weighted towards the rurals. In addition, if the MLA representing the city of Grande Prairie becomes a minister, his/her effectiveness in the city would be compromised and so would our voice in the Legislature.

In summary, there are good arguments from both perspectives, but I feel we are at a point in time where the city can utilize the current system to the advantage of Grande Prairie and everyone in the region.