The venom in John Crosbie's impromptu Sunday morning remarks at the United Alternative assembly in Ottawa may have been the surest sign that the nascent political movement had managed to craft the beginnings of an enduring, "small-c " conservative consensus upon which Canada's right-of-centre voters can unite. Casting himself as the voice of Tory centrism, the former Mulroney cabinet minister tore into the four broad policy resolutions that had been endorsed by the 1,200-plus UA delegates the previous day. Where, Mr. Crosbie demanded from a floor microphone, was any commitment to regional subsidies for economically disadvantaged regions like his home province of Newfoundland? And why was there so much talk about the "mantra" of provincial equality, and discussion of a Triple-E Senate? Overall, only recycled Reform Party of Canada planks had been used to assemble the UA's foundational platform, the self-described Progressive Conservative "dinosaur" complained. "I'm telling you how I see it," Mr. Crosbie snapped in response to the jeers of unimpressed delegates. "You can see it any damn well way you like."

In reality, the UA delegates gathered at the Ottawa Congress Centre February 19-21 had already jettisoned a formal commitment to a Triple-E Senate, and downplayed several other hard-line Reform positions, in hopes of securing Tory su pport. But overall, Mr. Crosbie was correct. Drawing from the direct democracy-social conservatism wellspring that has always dominated RPC policy, the three-day convention ultimately coalesced around two major policy themes: a vehement rejection of judici al activism and a concomitant dedication to direct democracy; and the radical devolution of many of Ottawa's current responsibilities to the provinces.

The potential attractiveness of such a package to a broad conservative constituency was indicated by the disparate array of UA participants who endorsed the convention' s principles. Peter White, the UA steering committee member and former principal secretary to Brian Mulroney who insisted in a December speech that the UA must reject social conservatism and abandon Senate reform, commented cheerfully on Sunday that "nothing that was agreed upon yesterday would offend me or any other Tory." From the opposite end of the social-policy spectrum, hard-line Alberta Reform MP Myron Thompson pronounces himself equally pleased: "I didn' t see anything that was watered down in Ottawa, except the Triple-E."

Equally contented was the small contingent of delegates from Quebec, of whom the most prominent were former Parti Quebecois cabinet minister Rodrigue Biron and former Action Democratique du Quebec leader Jean Allaire. "I' ve never seen an assembly with a strong majority of English Canadians express such strong support for decentralization," remarks one francophone UA participant, who prefers not to be identified because of his sovereigntist ties. " I think they are going to reach a lot of people in Quebec with their policies."

Of course, managing to steer clear of shoals as the UA ship first clears harbour is no guarantee that a right-of-centre coalition will ever sail into power. Nor, for that matter, is it certain that the delegates' chosen course of action— forming a new party free from the negative baggage of both Reform and the federal Tories—will be approved later this spring in a plebiscite of Reformers. Tory leader Jo e Clark, moreover, continues to evince limited interest in the UA initiative, meaning that the conservative vote-splitting that delivered scores of seats to Prime Minister Jean Chretien' s ruling Liberals in the 1997 election could persist through the next vote, no matter what the UA' s supporters eventually accomplish. And the UA remains a huge dice-roll for Reform leader Preston Manning, whose leadership is now a subject of open debate among Tories and Reformers.

For all that, even the UA's fiercest critics must acknowledge that the delegates demonstrated a surprisingly shrewd ability to balance the competing philosophies of its various constituencies. Heading into Ottawa, social conservatives were openly sceptical. Speaking shortly before Alberta Premier Ra lph Klein's opening address, Alberta Senator-elect Ted Morton fretted that the convention might result in a "sellout" of Reform's traditional conservatism in hopes of attracting Ontario's Red Tories.

Mr. Klein's speech fuelled such fears. In remarks scripted by his former chief of staff Rod Love, a UA steering committee member, he warned against enshrining conservative moral positions in the UA. A party dedicated to the principle of " minimum interference" should not presume to "interfere in the most personal of all decisions...those things of such a personal nature that the decision becomes one between an individual, and his or her God." The remark drew a mixed response from the UA audience, which understood that Mr. Klein's "personal decisions" referred to issues like abortion and same-sex marriage. Far better received was the Alberta premier' s swipe against "the maddening trend towards judge-made law." At a post-speech press conference, several reporters pointed out the apparent contradiction in his remarks . The backlash against judicial activism has originated largely from social conservatives outraged by court rulings like last year's Supreme Court of Canada Vriend decision ordering recognition of homosexual rights in Alberta' s human rights code, and most recently, the legalization of possession of child pornography by a B.C. judge.

Huddling in a private caucus after Mr. Klein issued his warning against moral pronouncements, a group of about 60 pro-family delegates contrived a strategy to ensure their concerns were not ignored in the UA's "founding principles. " In order to "seed" the final convention document with pro-life and pro-family language, they agreed to present two floor amendments to Resolution 3, which dealt with social themes. One would replace a n existing reference to "support for families as an essential building block for a healthy society" with subtly different phrasing recognizing "the family as the essential building block" of society. The change was not cosmetic; "the family" is generally understood legally to mean the traditional heterosexual family, whereas "families" is often substituted into human rights documents by gay activists as a term that encompasses homosexual unions.

The other pro-family amendment, meanwhile, affirmed "the fundamental human rights of life, freedom and the right to own and enjoy property." The amendments passed easily the next morning, courtesy of artful marketing. After delegates swiftly passed Resolutions 1 and 2, which commit the UA to uniting against the Liberals and to a fiscal- conservative foundation, the social conservatives presented their proposals as straightforward affirmations of the family and of property rights. No mention was made of their relationship to the abortion and gay rights issues because delegates would almost certainly have balked on the grounds that potentially divisive debates should be shelved until the UA is more solidly founded.

The outcome of those future debates remains uncertain, but pro-life and pro-family participants were cautiously pleased to have at least sown the field beforehand. Asked for his assessment after the Saturday morning resolution debate, Mr. Morton commented affably that the outcome "looked pretty much like Reform to me." At the same time, the delegates—who were split roughly 60-40 between Reformers and non-Reformers— were careful to reject other amendments that might have distressed the large contingent of relatively liberal Ontarians. (Ontario formed the biggest single voting block, followed by Alberta and B.C.) An amendment calling for an "urgent reform " of immigration policies was decisively rejected, as was one advocating recognition of "the supremacy of God and the rule of law."

One important addition to the social policy package was recognition of "a primary role for provincial governments, rather than the federal government, in formulating social policies." Like several other references in Resolution 4, which dealt with "democratic and governance themes," the amendment was a calculated attempt to forge an alli ance between English-Canadian decentralists and soft-nationalist Quebeckers like Mr. Biron and Mr. Allaire. This congruence of interests, which Reform strategists have long posited but which has never before been manifested, could enable an eventual UA bre akthrough in Quebec. UA organizers and delegates went out of their way to signal their openness to such an alliance; Mr. Biron, who is a UA steering committee member, received a standing ovation every time he took the stage and was accorded the privilege o f presenting his main speech on Saturday evening, immediately preceding Mr. Manning's keynote address.

According to Mr. Biron and the other Quebec participants, the key to fostering French-English harmony is to honour the provisions of the 1867 British Nor th America Act, which conferred sole jurisdiction over social programs onto the provinces. Doing so would automatically trigger the sort of sweeping decentralization advocated by Reform's own "New Canada" proposals, since Canada 's original constitution never envisioned nor sanctioned the top-down, centralist intrusions into social jurisdictions that have characterized federal Liberal policy. And since provinces would enjoy wide latitude internally, Quebec' s continuing affinity for high-taxing statism need not conflict with the smaller-government philosophy favoured by provinces like Ontario and Alberta. " If Canadians choose to respect the constitution written by our forebears and make their country more dynamic by modernizing its democratic institutions, then Quebec would certainly look at Canada in a new light," Mr. Biron predicted.

Whether the UA can attract Quebeckers may be critical to winning credibility in Ontario. "For once, Quebec is not the problem," says the sovereigntist UA participant. "We have to make sure Ontario is getting the message [to unite right-wing votes]. If Ontario doesn't get the message, it is useless." But many Ontarians who voted PC in 1997 remain unconvinced that the UA will be more palatable to Quebeckers than Reform has been. Ontario Independent MP John Nunziata, a UA delegate, thinks the ideas floated in Ottawa might win them over. " Biron and Allaire give this credibility," he commented on Sunday morning. "Quebec is crying out for change."

The other major convention theme, the rejection of judicial activism, was stressed in Saturday afternoon's Resolution 4 debates. Courtesy of a floor amendment that received overwhelming support, the resolution now mandates " a clear understanding that final responsibility for public policy rests with elected governments and not unaccountable judges and human rights bureaucrats." It also calls for " respect for the legitimate use of the Section 33 notwithstanding power," a reference to the constitutional provision which allows individual governments to opt out of court-ordered legislation. In a stirring crescendo to a well-received speech shortly after the Resolution 4 debate, Alberta Treasurer Stockwell Day brought roaring delegates to their feet with a scathing condemnation of the Chretien Liberals ' refusal to invoke the notwithstanding clause to invalidate the pro-kiddie-porn ruling. "A government of the land that will not protect the children of the land from the predators of the land does not have the right to govern the land, " Mr. Day thundered.

By adding the judge-bashing theme to Reform's traditional commitment to direct-democracy measures such as referenda, free parliamentary votes, recall and citizens' initiatives, the UA embraced an explicitly populist approach to government that contrasts sharply with the Liberals' devotion to cabinet-, court- and bureaucrat-based governance. The delegate focus on judicial activism, says Calgary Reform MP Jason Kenney, "was an unexpected, spontaneous but very dominant issue" that delineates " an obvious common ground" for social conservatives and populists. "It's all upside and no downside for us."

But while the skeleton for a successful UA may have been assembled, considerable uncertainty remains about how to flesh it out. Voting on Sunday, delegates filled out a preferential ballot that ranked four choices: building on an existing party, a merger o f parties, working together locally to select a single right-of-centre candidate in each constituency, and creating a new party. The merger idea received the least support, reflecting the practical impossibility of formally uniting Reform with the PCs as long as Mr. Clark remains uninterested. A convincing presentation by former Ontario lieutenant-governor Hal Jackman, a leading Tory fundraiser, won substantial suppo rt for the local-unity option.

Mr. Jackman noted that riding-level alliances, whereby parties with similar platforms agree to back the candidate with the best prospect of winning, has been used with success in a number of Canadian elections. He also pointe d out that Mr. Clark has already made "a significant concession" with his recent pronouncement that he might permit joint Tory-Reform efforts in "a handful" of key ridings in the next election. " If he allows it in principle, why not 10 or 20, or perhaps 50, or 75?" Mr. Jackman wondered.

Still, although delegates were persuaded that local collaboration among Reformers and Tories should be fostered wherever possible, the new party remained their preferred option, receiving more first-place votes than the othe r three choices combined. Virtually every Ontario delegate who spoke during the Sunday morning debates supported a new party, primarily on the grounds that it would be free of the taint that a Reform-based UA would retain in the minds of central Canadian v oters.

Western Reformers were less enthralled. Saskatchewan MP Lee Morrison cautioned delegates that the transition would be logistically difficult. Among other things, it could result in the loss of Reform' s official opposition status and the attached lar ge research budget, and of the election advertising privileges Reform enjoys courtesy of its substantial parliamentary representation. Mr. Morrison also noted that it would take at least 18 months before a new party would be election-ready. If Prime Minist er Chretien called a snap election during that period, Mr. Morrison warned, the UA could be "done like dinner."

But in the post-convention period, many of the Reform MPs who voted against the new-party option say they have revised their opinion. "There's an enormous risk and a huge amount of work to accomplish it," comments Mr. Kenney, but it is likely the only viable option "because the Progressive Conservatives will never join Reform." Mr. Thompson says he too must "reconsider" his pre-convention oppositi on because of the depth of UA delegate support for a new party.

However, all Reform MPs stress that grassroots support cannot be taken for granted. Mr. Thompson suspects that despite his own change of heart, the majority of his riding's Reformers will reje ct the new-party proposal. Christine Whitaker, a retired Saskatchewan teacher who served three terms on the RPC' s national executive council before stepping down last year, is typical of many hostile party members. She believes Reform can continue to build strength nationally on its own, and she suspects that a new party will abandon many of the foundational principles that originally attracted western conservatives like her. And like Mr. Morrison, Mrs. Whitaker worries that the inevitable period of lengthy re-organization will trigger a snap election. "I am saddened and disheartened and discouraged," she says. "I am not in any way prepared to start again to promote a new party. I've done that before and I don' t have the heart for it again."

Mr. Manning will deliver a written report to Reformers within the next two or three weeks, and in early May the party's entire membership will vote in a mail-in plebiscite on whether to endorse the new party approach. The poll will likely be of an "advisory" nature, Mr. K enney says, meaning it would merely authorize the Reform leadership to tentatively plan for the creation of the as-yet-unnamed new party. Another vote to formally reconstitute Reform within the UA would be required before the new party' s founding convention, which should occur in about a year if Reformers give Mr. Manning the go-ahead.

The final step would be a second convention to address perhaps the biggest question of all: Who will be lead the UA? Mr. Manning's campaign-style address on Saturday night se rved notice that he intends to campaign vigorously for the post. In an effort to portray a softer, Clintonesque "I feel your pain" political style, the Reform leader apologized for his penchant for analyzing rather than empathizing. Lamenting that sound conservative policies were often rejected because leaders like himself failed to " connect with the heart as well as the head," he promised to forge a new Canadian "union of the heart."

Mr. Manning indicated that the union, at least in his mind, would not be dogmatically conservative. While he promised "to unite with others like-minded to relieve the crushing load of Liberal taxation," Mr. Manning also attacked the Chretien government's failure to safeguard state medicare, which he characterized as one of Canada' s great unifying initiatives. His remarks ended on perhaps the most nakedly emotional note ever struck in his political career, with an appeal to Quebeckers, westerners, women, natives, immigrants and others who were not invited to the negotiating table at Canada's original Confederation to join today in "one big family meeting—a meeting like we've never had before."

The speech won over some listeners. Mr. Nunziata, the former Liberal "rat-packer" who broke with the Chretien government over its refusal to honour its 1993 election promise to scrap the Goods and Services Tax, said that he would consider running as a UA candidate and that he was "more impressed" with Mr. Manning than ever before. "With a new party, people are going to take a new look," he predicted, "so I wouldn't reject Mr. Manning out of hand as leader."

But others clearly would. Mr. White commented dismissively that many Ontario Progressive Conservatives he had spoken with "were not swayed" by the speech, and he emphasized that the new-party option " implies a new leadership race. Mr. Manning's prospects in that race, he added, aren't good due to the negative view most voters east of Manitoba have formed of the Reform leader. " You only have one opportunity to make a first impression." Similarly, Steve Coupland, the director of operations for the federal PCs, says that most Tories still want nothing to do with the United Alternative. "You' d have to prove that it's not Manning still pulling the strings," he explains.

Even Manning loyalists admit it may be impossible for the UA to succeed in Ontario without a leadership change. And while none of his circle will publicly say so, some insiders privately suggest that Mr. Manning' s awareness of his fragile position accounted for his unusually emotion al Saturday night speech, by which he hoped to show voters that they have formed a false impression of him through the misrepresentations of a hostile national media. On the other hand, the Reform leader' s prospects are aided by the absence of a ready-made alternative. Many federal Tories continue to believe Mr. Clark might be able to unite conservatives, but that idea is dismissed as laughable by the many Reformers who still view him as the bumbling Red Tory whose political misjudgments led to the unnecess ary collapse of his brief prime ministership in 1979, and who harbour deep resentments generated during his lengthy tenure as a key lieutenant to Brian Mulroney. Moreover, Mr. Clark remains aloof, reiterating his lack of interest in the UA last week and in sisting he would only discuss the matter personally with Mr. Manning out of "politeness" if the Reform leader asked him to. One man who might bridge the East-West, Tory-Reform divide is Mr. Klein, but he carries his own baggage. Social conservatives distru st the Alberta premier; they felt betrayed by his deliberate derailing of a 1995 effort by provincial Tories to delist abortion from medicare funding and his refusal last spring to invoke the notwithstanding clause against the Vriend decision.

Like Mr. Klein, Ontario Premier Mike Harris is touted as having the stature to broker a re-marriage of Canadian conservatives. But he has steadfastly refused to formally endorse the UA effort, let alone seek its leadership, and he is widely expected to see k at least o ne more term in office in Ontario. Three other potential candidates emerged out of the UA convention: Stockwell Day, Reform deputy leader Deborah Grey, and Ontario Transportation Minister Tony Clement. However, Ms. Grey and Mr. Clement, who served as conve ntion co-chairmen, are both convincingly adamant that they will not run under any circumstances.

Mr. Day currently seems nearly as disinterested, commenting during the convention that a leadership bid is "not currently on my radar screen." Nevertheless, he remains perhaps the leading choice of those who believe a new face must lead the new party. The former Protestant pastor is widely admired in social conservative circles, and neo-conservatives respect his solid fiscal-conservative record as Alberta treasu rer. The fact that he grew up in Montreal and speaks fluent French gives him a strategic advantage over any of the other putative leadership contenders, and he is widely regarded as one of the most polished public speakers in Canadian politics. Mr. Day 's candidacy was endorsed by Mr. Klein, among many others, though cynics note that the premier has also blessed Joe Clark and federal Liberal Finance Minister Paul Martin in recent weeks.

For the next few months, however, the central focus of the UA will be on membership, not leadership. Mr. Manning is barnstorming the West, selling the UA to Reformers, while Tory operatives are doing the same with their party members in the East. Late last week, senior leaders of the federal PCs were fighting back by threatening to expel party members who collude with the UA. But most observers think the UA advocates have the upper hand. As Reform MP Thompson remarks, "There' s a lot more common ground than I thought there was." BCR

BC Report is available at your favorite newsstand,
or save up to 43% with a subscription