Not to say this isn't true. The Liberal party, like centre-left parties elsewhere, has undoubtedly prospered in recent years by appropriating the policies of the right. The Grits have been more skillful -- or, if you prefer, shameless -- at this than most, steering just far enough to starboard to keep the broad right from uniting around any one party, without leaving behind too many supporters to the left.

But it is just as possible to argue that Reform, in its consuming lust for the respectability that has always eluded it in central Canada, has moved some considerable distance towards the Liberals. In its pre-budget submission, for example (about which more in another column), the party takes a walk on the mild side: the $12-billion in spending it promised to cut in the last election has been replaced by a call for spending merely to be frozen at current levels.

The previous heavy emphasis on tax cuts has also been muted somewhat, to avoid ceding the fiscal high ground to the Grits.

On Quebec, too, while Reform is credited with stiffening Liberal spines in opposition either to a unilateral secession or special status, it is at least as significant that the party should have lined up with the usual suspects in support of the "Calgary Declaration." It's impossible to know quite what this murky document is about -- one suspects this was not entirely accidental -- but it's plausible to suppose it is intended to soften up public opinion in advance of another bid to entrench some sort of distinct legal status for Quebec in the constitution. If so, there would seem precious little to distinguish Reform's constitutional position from the Liberals'.

Perhaps conscious of its increasing absorption into the mainstream, the party has been searching for a new constitutional plan, one that would reassure its western supporters it had not abandoned them. So far we know only that it would entail a renewed drive for Senate reform, beginning with a campaign to pressure the Prime Minister to appoint senators who had been elected by the people of their respective provinces, in the hope that this would lead to more substantive reform down the road.

But it's not clear what would accompany this. Some reports last week had the party linking its support for the Calgary declaration with its elected- appointed Senate proposal. Reform MP Ian McLelland is peddling a two- stage plan, which would follow up these largely symbolic measures with constitutional amendments, pairing wholesale Senate reform with an interpretive clause for Quebec a la distinct society.

The party is plainly divided over these proposals. By week's end party leader Preston Manning had to lay down the law: the party would not make its support for the Calgary declaration contingent on Senate reform. And -- a line in the sand? -- the party's embrace of the document, notably the recognition of Quebec's "unique character," did not extend to amending the constitution. "Don't try to constitutionalize the Calgary declaration," Manning warned.

There are three issues here. One, whether to press for elected senators, in advance of broader reforms. Two, whether to extend informal statements recognizing Quebec's uniqueness to include constitutional status as such.

And three, whether to link the first with the second.

The danger in Reform's scheme for half-reform of the Senate is that it might get precisely what it asks for: an elected Senate, with all the legitimacy and power that flows from that, but without changing the composition of the upper house to address the concerns of less populous regions. To one elected, central Canada-dominated chamber we would simply have added a second.

The defects of the second, entrenching some new formulation of "distinct society" in the constitution, are well-known, and need not be repeated here.

What is particularly insidious, rather, is the third suggestion: that some tradeoff might be arranged, offering distinct society in exchange for Senate reform. Unity critic Rahim Jaffer was quoted last week saying "people in the west might be more willing to accept something for Quebec if they get something in return." There is a rather important element missing from that equation: Canada. The yardstick by which any of these proposals should be measured is whether they are good for the country as a whole, not whether they benefit one region or the other. On its own, Senate reform would be good for Canada, inasmuch as it would give the regions a louder voice in the national government, and so diminish the clamour for devolution. But distinct society would very likely destroy the country, for which a democratic Senate would be small recompense.

So Manning is right to reject linkage. Now let's see if he means it about keeping Calgary out of the constitution.