Conservatives react to the results on election night in Calgary, Monday Oct. 19, 2015. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jonathan Hayward

By the time this article appears, I’ll be in Vancouver at the opening reception for the Conservative Party of Canada convention, catching up with some old friends from my backbench days. (Now that there’s a new guy in the PMO, I’m assuming the former PMO’s diktat against any CPC member being seen with me in public is no longer in force.)

So much has changed — and I’m not just talking about my own career. In the Stephen Harper era, CPC conventions were stage-managed to the nth degree. Any resolution deemed too provocative, too controversial or even remotely critical of the thin-skinned party establishment was deemed inadmissible — or fell off the agenda because the people running the policy sessions simply ‘ran out of time’.

This time (my second convention since I left the CPC) feels different, mainly because the grassroots members are angry and determined to show it. The CPC delegates are hardworking, generous people — but they don’t like to lose. You can see the rage simmering away in the policy resolutions up for debate — resolutions built around a desire to curb the power of the party leader and administration.

One good indicator that the grassroots is in a mood to punish is the resolution before the convention that would limit future Conservative prime ministers to just eight years in office. Now, nobody needs to explain to me why Conservatives would be annoyed with the insular and autocratic management style of Stephen Harper and the outgoing CPC executive council, but the idea of term limits seems to me to be confusing the specific with the general.

Besides being anti-democratic (members should be able to choose whoever they want to lead their party) and incompatible with the Westminster system, the idea of term limits assumes that all party leaders come with the same best-before date — that because Harper became an electoral liability after ten years in office, his successors will as well.

A much better idea would be to hold leadership reviews at every convention, even when the Conservatives are in power. Many of the post-election post-mortems argued that if Harper had stepped down, the party could have found a younger, fresher leader who would have been more competitive. Armchair quarterbacking is easy, but there’s something to be said for requiring a leader to seek the party’s approval on a regular basis.

You cannot change the rules of the game once the game has begun. If this resolution passes, Ms. Ambrose could hold on to her current high-profile job and keep people in suspense until late November before declaring for the leadership. You cannot change the rules of the game once the game has begun. If this resolution passes, Ms. Ambrose could hold on to her current high-profile job and keep people in suspense until late November before declaring for the leadership.

Harper never had to endure a leadership review. Maybe if he had, the Calgary convention of 2013 could have nudged him out. It’s happened before; Ralph Klein won a third majority mandate in 2004, but a 2006 Alberta PC leadership review gave him a confidence vote of just 55 per cent of delegates, which expedited his retirement.

On the policy front, there are some interesting and timely resolutions calling for the party to reverse its current position opposing physician assisted death, and confirming its commitment to Canadian veterans. Several resolutions (and comments attached to those resolutions) express frustration with the former Conservative government’s relationship with veterans — especially with the unresolved issues that resulted in litigation, and which seem to be bedevilling the Trudeau government as well.

This convention will, of course, see another debate on how the next leader will be chosen. Currently, each riding is assigned 100 points and leadership candidates earn points based on their portion of support in that riding. Such a system certainly favours candidates with broad bases of support over those with support confined to a specific region or province. Every CPC convention has seen a push for purity — one member one vote — but those resolutions have always failed.

But the most intriguing constitutional resolution — the one that everyone will be watching — will be the one regarding the eligibility of the interim leader to pursue the permanent job.

Rona Ambrose has exceeded all expectations as the temporary occupant of Stornoway; she’s able, telegenic and represents the same generation as the current prime minister. Predictably, this resolution originated not from the grassroots but from the caucus. Such high-profile MPs as Scott Reid and Pierre Poilievre are said to be driving the ‘Draft Rona’ Movement. With 26 per cent support, she is apparently the leading choice of Conservative-leaning voters, according to a Mainstreet poll.

If the constitutional amendment passes — and if Ms. Ambrose turns out to be interested — she would have to resign the interim leadership six months prior to the May 2017 leadership vote.

Here’s why this is a bad idea:

The rule against an interim leader seeking the permanent leadership exists for a reason — to prevent that interim leader from enjoying an unfair advantage. The interim leader gets preferential media access, the first questions every day in QP and a considerable leg-up in terms of taxpayer resources and staff. In fact, the extra exposure Ms. Ambrose gets through doing her job probably explains why she’s leading the field right now.

The leadership race has already begun. There are three declared candidates, more to come. Presumably, one or more of these candidates passed on seeking the interim leadership in favour of running for the permanent job.

You cannot change the rules of the game once the game has begun. If this resolution passes, Ms. Ambrose could hold on to her current high-profile job while testing the waters for a leadership run. She could keep people in suspense until late November before declaring.

That’s simply not fair to the other candidates. And a party attempting to renew its relationship with Canadian voters shouldn’t replace an authoritarian management style with one that looks like they’re making it up as they go along.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.