suffered heavy losses in the last election,rndescribed two male posteriors in a prohomosexualrnmovie as “those unforgettablernspeaking orifices, paralleled only byrnthose Reform party members of Parliamentrnwho sit in front of me.” Reform hasrnbeen fighting the cultural war on otherrnfronts. The party’s first parliamentary filibusterrnwas against a government appropriationrnfor native Indians. When a Sikhrnsued the Royal Canadian Mounted Police,rndemanding to wear a turban whilernon duty, Alberta Reform members collectedrnfunds to launch their own legalrnaction supporting RCMP policy. NelsonrnEddy would have been proud.rnReform’s campaign for change hasrnbeen its most successful. Manning hasrncleverly exploited the Canadian public’srnresentment of the perks enjoyed by MPs,rnwho like their counterparts in the UnitedrnStates Congress receive lavish, tax-freernpensions for life. “Listening to him, hern[Manning] sounds exactly like JimmyrnStewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,”rnMaclean’s columnist Peter C.rnNewman complained. Reform literaturernblares, “So You Don’t Trust Politicians?rnNeither Do We!” The party’s platform isrna cornucopia of ideas for standing a politicalrnestablishment on its head. Reformrnadvocates giving citizens the right tornrecall MPs and a greater voice throughrnnational referendums. The party alsornsupports granting MPs more freedomrnfrom party discipline when casting votesrnin parliament. Critics charge that the latterrnidea is self-serving. Manning wouldrnundoubtedly benefit from dissidentrnLiberal MPs voting against the rulingrnLiberal government. But would a PrimernMinister Manning exercise such laissezfairerncharity toward Reform MPs wishingrnto vote against his government?rnAfter the 1993 election, Manningrnannounced that Reform MPs would notrnaccept a long list of parliamentary perks,rnincluding free haircuts, massages, andrnFrench lessons for spouses. Manningrnasked Reform MPs to give up ten percentrnof their salaries, or pay the tax on theirrn$21,300 annual tax-free allowance—ifrnthey could afford to do so. At a press conference.rnManning returned the keys to hisrntaxpayer-subsidized automobile andrnchose a former secretary’s office as hisrnown. But Manning was embarrassed inrnMarch 1994 when it was revealed thatrnReform’s executive council provided himrnwith a $31,000 fund to pay for expenses,rnincluding clothing and dry cleaning. “Hern[Manning] wasn’t at all well dressed,” Reformrnspokesman Ron Wood said inrndefending the fund. The revelation setrnoff a firestorm of controversy, largelyrnwithin Reform. Calgary West MPrnStephen Harper said the fund “undercutsrnour ability to forcefully and credibly articulaternthe positions we’ve taken on somernof these pay and perks issues.” WithrnManning’s blessing. Reform’s executivernpublicly rebuked Harper, who is seen as arnpossible successor to Manning. After thernincident, both men said they wanted tornput personal differences behind them.rn”We’re growing up,” one Reform memberrnobserved.rnTo his credit, Manning has emphasizedrnconstituent relations. Reform MPsrnhave been encouraged to spend morerntime in their ridings, meeting with constituents,rnthan playing government inrnOttawa. (A riding is a Canadian parliamentaryrndistrict.) Reform prides itself onrntaking direction from the grass roots,rnrather than from a core group of partyrnbosses. When a gun control bill surfacedrnin parliament this year, some ReformrnMPs initially expressed support for thernmeasure. But after hearing from constituents,rnReform MPs voted as a blocrnagainst the legislation.rnThis strategy has allowed Reform tornstay close to the Canadian public’s pulse.rnNowhere is this clearer than on the legislativernpension issue, a topic outside thernparameters of debate for Newt Gingrich.rnCanadian MP pensions are payable afterrnonly six years of service; payments beginrnwhen the member retires, regardless ofrnage, until recently, when Reform’s criticismrnforced the Liberals to set 55 as thernminimum age for receiving benefits.rnDouble-dipping was tolerated; paymentrnhad occurred even if the cx-MP held anotherrngovernment post such as ambassador.rnThe Liberal bill was opposed byrnReform, which supports MP pensions onlyrnif they “are no more generous than privaternsector norms.” hi a principled rejectionrnof Ottawa’s political culture, ReformrnMPs opted out of the system, creating arnclear contrast with Liberals. One can visualizernthe Reform TV ads in the 1997rncampaign: “Has Ottawa Got a PensionrnPlan for You!”rnYet there arc limits to Reform’s antipolitics.rnThe party has not, for example,rnbeen aggressive on MP pay raises.rnReform advocates popular referendums.rnWhy not a popular vote on politicians’rnpay raises? Canada’s five-party system offersrnmore of an electoral choice than thernAmerican two-party system, but a “NonernOf The Above” ballot option would givernCanadian voters yet another choice.rnManning has, however, been out frontrnon foreign policy issues. Public opinionrnpolls show the Canadian public opposedrnto military intervention in war-tornrnforeign locales like Somalia and Bosnia.rnA scandal involving the brutal murder ofrnSomali civilians by Canadian troops, andrnthe recent Bosnian hostage-taking ofrnCanadians, have fueled public opposition.rnUnique among party leaders, Manningrnhas called for the withdrawal ofrnCanadian troops serving with United Nationsrnmissions. The contrast with thernsocialist NDP is ironic. Critical of NATOrnmembership, the NDP have been cheerleadersrnfor U.N. military adventurism.rnOne of Reform’s less-publicized proposalsrncalls for formal debate on whetherrnCanada should remain in NATO. Inrn1993, Manning said he favored Canadianrnwithdrawal from NATO, which seemedrnto contradict Reform’s formal position.rnHe later retreated, saying NATO membershiprnshould be reviewed. Reformrnis not strictly noninterventionist; the partyrnsupported extending a ten-year-oldrnagreement allowing the United States torntest cruise missiles over Canada and supportsrncutting, not abolishing, foreign aid.rnThe party is strangely silent on Canada’srndraconian Official Secrets Act, which allowsrnthe government to harass and prosecuternjournalists who report embarrassingrnfacts about Ottawa’s foreign policy.rnBut the domestic issue of Quebec isrnlikely to determine whether Reformrnemerges as the formal opposition. Thernparty favors no special treatment forrnQuebec. They would abolish officialrnbilingualism, but give all provinces, includingrnQuebec, exclusive control overrnlanguage and culture. If Quebec votesrnagainst separation from Canada, moderaternBloc Quebecois MPs could leave thernparty, erasing the slim, one-seat deficitrnReform faces in Ottawa. Reform couldrnemerge in a stronger position if Quebecrnvotes for separation and the Liberalsrnmishandle the issue as the Mulroney governmentrndid. Both scenarios assumernReform does not compromise on its antipoliticalrnagenda, a task that becomesrnmore difficult the longer the party’srnmembers are in public office.rnUnsolicited advice to Mr. Manning:rnDon’t sign any book deals with a foreignrnpublisher.rnGreg Kaza is a Michigan state representative.rnHis mother is a Canadian national.rn48/CHRONICLESrnrnrn