Right and reasonable but so far unsaleable: the grassroots Calgary Congress argues the need to return to the Confederation of 1867.

On the last day of the grassroots Calgary Congress, devoted to "rebalancing" political responsibilities in Canadian federalism, the podium was occupied by burly separatist Leon H. Craig, an emeritus University of Alberta political scientist and the most respected voice in the now dormant Alberta independence movement. Craig was asked whether Conservative Stephen Harper's ascent to the Prime Minister's Office had changed his assessment of the need for Western secession. And while the question itself illustrated that his cause is waning, he insisted that the centralization of power in Ottawa has already corrupted most of the country. "The rest of Canada is not going to accede to [your] proposed changes out of goodwill, in recognition of the wisdom and justice of your arguments," reasoned Craig to the almost 400 delegates jamming the conference room in Calgary's downtown Westin Hotel. "They will more likely be dismissed with the same sovereign contempt Central Canada has always shown toward the West."

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Conservative academics, public policy advocates and grassroots activists from across the country convened for the three-day congress during the first weekend of October to discuss the ills of Canada's overly centralized federalism. More recognizable figures, such as Reform party founder Preston Manning and outgoing Alberta Premier Ralph Klein, added their voices to the weekend's grousing diagnoses of how provincial economic and cultural sovereignty has been eroded by intrusive federal initiatives--particularly transfer payments, the Canada Health Act and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Yet the symposium, sponsored by the Edmonton-based Citizens Centre for Freedom and Democracy, promised no quick-fix solution. Even with a sympathetic government in Ottawa, the general consensus at the downtown Calgary convention centre, lined with black-and-white posters of the Fathers of Confederation, was that real constitutional reform could take 12 to 20 years.

The three core resolutions passed by the delegates--for communication to their federal and provincial representatives--involved restricting federal spending solely to areas of federal jurisdiction, restraining the power of the courts, and making the Senate representative of the provinces. And congress co-chair Link Byfield, chairman of the Citizens Centre for Democratic Reform, says that such federal limits were the very foundation envisioned for the Canadian federation in 1867. But why debate that now? "We're killing ourselves economically; we're falling behind the developed world," laments Byfield. "So we either keep getting worse or we get better. And the secret to that, as our forbearers found out long ago, is responsible government. That means responsible federal government, where we know who's responsible for what and we hold them accountable for doing it."

While Alberta, and to a much greater extent, Quebec, already entertains separatist sentiments, the congress made clear that over-centralization is hurting all the provinces, to the point that, like the deficit-and-debt crisis of the late 1980s, the trends could force political reforms. David MacKinnon, a senior public policy consultant from Ontario, made the case that his "have" province is beginning to suffer from the weight of transfer payments. He noted that the province's July unemployment rate of 6.5 per cent was for the first time higher than the national average of 6.4 per cent. MacKinnon pointed out Ontario's contributions to interregional subsidies are nearly double its annual growth, while ballyhooing the province's $23-billion net fiscal gap. And that generosity has been in vain, claims the Ontario Chamber of Commerce. "We're saying, it's all the more reason for the federal government to evaluate equalization more to make sure this massive transfer is in fact having some intended effect," explains OCC president Len Crispino, in a later interview.

MacKinnon asserted that equalization puts Ontario's social services at a real disadvantage compared to recipient provinces. In Ontario, there are 2.7 hospital beds per 1,000 residents, the lowest in the country, compared to the national average of 3.6 per 1,000. He also reported that Ontario's operating grants to community colleges were $3,000 per student lower than the national average for 2003-04. "In the case of Ontario, what we are really doing is asking the citizens of the province with the lowest real fiscal capacity per capita to support massive transfers to others, which insulate recipients from change ... which support public services that are much more accessible than they are in Ontario," he said.

It hasn't been smooth sailing for recipient provinces like Manitoba, either. Congress speaker Peter Holle, president of the Winnipeg-based Frontier Centre for Public Policy, pointed out that since 1961, four years after the birth of the equalization scheme, Manitoba's share of Canada's GDP and population have both dropped by roughly 25 per cent, while government spending in his province is now 50 per cent of per capita GDP. Indeed, in fiscal year 2004-05, government spending in all "have-not" provinces hovered around that mark. "So instead of providing reasonably comparable services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation, recipients of equalization are provided inflated levels of public service costs," says Holle. Equalization, protected in the charter, accounts for about 20 per cent of Manitoba's budget.

As a means to rebalance the federation, the congress also focused on Senate reform. Byfield, one of Alberta's four senators-elect, says the Fathers of Confederation envisioned the Senate as a voice for the provinces in Ottawa. However, John A. Macdonald, the father of centralization, reinterpreted the Senate as a "house of sober second thought," laments Byfield. "Picked by the prime minister, accountable to the prime minister. And yet, in theory, according to Section 22 of the Constitution, representing provincial interests."

The congress resolved to petition the government to rebalance the federation in confirmation with the 1867 Constitution, allowing the provinces the responsibility to steer their own social and economic futures, with a senate watching over their interests in Ottawa. While Byfield doubts the provinces will sign on, under the leadership of Stephen Harper, the federal government appears to be steering somewhat that course.

That may be comforting for most at the congress, but not for curmudgeon Craig. The retired professor posited while a "Canadian regime reformed along the lines" of the Calgary Congress would be preferential, they would be unlikely unless the congress were to adopt an "or else"--the threat to sever ties completely with the confederation. "There are players in the national political game who have mighty vested interests in the way it is currently played," Craig said. And while the "or else" clause wasn't included in the resolutions adopted by the congress, Craig's advice was heeded. "It wasn't accidental that Craig was last on the program," says Byfield. "I hope he's wrong, but I'm not going to live forever in hope." And neither will those in attendance: Craig's speech elicited a standing ovation.