There is no constitutional crisis in this country. There is a crisis, all right, and it may well end in the dismembering of Canada. But it has nothing to do with the Constitution. There is no fundamental disagreement between Quebec and the rest of Canada over the constitutional architecture of the country. We are in the grips of an invented crisis.

This makes all the more inexplicable the maudlin, self-pitying nonsense put about by Quebec's political and business elite over the past few weeks, to the effect that the rest of Canada is seeking to ''humiliate'' Quebec, to force it to ''practise federalism on its knees,'' to demand that it ''turn the other cheek'' and various other colorful anatomical metaphors for ''negotiate.''

Either these people are unfamiliar with their own province's brief, or they are deliberately courting a crisis, for the fact is that the whole matter could be resolved in five minutes, on Quebec's terms. It wouldn't be Meech Lake, but it would be everything that Quebec asked for going into the current round of constitutional negotiations. Every single one of Quebec's five conditions for ratifying the 1982 Constitution has been accepted by every single one of Meech Lake's serious opponents. So instead of getting everything it wanted and more, it would have to settle for merely everything. This is a humiliation?

QUEBEC'S DEMANDS

Just so there's no misunderstanding about this, let us recall Quebec's five demands, as formally presented by Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Gil Remillard almost four years ago. First on the list was ''explicit recognition of Quebec as a distinct society.'' Remillard himself was less than explicit what this might mean, but the Liberal Party platform on which it campaigned in the 1985 election is quite clear.

In at least half a dozen places, it says such recognition should be made in the preamble to the Constitution. Done. Clyde Wells would accept that, Jean Chretien would accept that, even Pierre Trudeau would accept it. So why in Meech Lake does it appear as an interpretive clause, and why is it accompanied by that long geography lesson on which linguistic groups are most numerous in different parts of Canada?

Second: ''A guarantee of increased powers in matters of immigration.'' This is achieved by entrenching in the Constitution the present Cullen-Couture agreement between Ottawa and Quebec on the joint selection of immigrants. Absolutely no one that I am aware of opposes this. But why must we also sign on to the general principle of provincial immigration quotas, and where did this business of the provinces taking over reception and integration services from the government of Canada come from?

Third: ''Limitation of the federal spending powers.'' The principle of opting out with compensation from shared-cost programs in areas of provincial jurisdiction is accepted by every major critic of the accord. But why does this forbid the establishment of minimum national standards?

Fourth: ''Quebec's participation in appointing judges to the Supreme Court of Canada.'' Entrench current practice of naming three judges from the civil law courts, and you've got a deal. But Meech Lake goes further, handing the job of nominating justices to the Supreme Court over to the provinces in toto.

Fifth: ''Recognition of a right of veto.'' This one, admittedly, is dicey. Few of Meech Lake's critics would agree to a blanket veto for Quebec, as opposed to a veto in certain areas, without a struggle. But remember: Meech Lake doesn't just give Quebec a veto - it gives it to all the provinces. There's room to bargain here. Quebec gets its veto - in return for Senate reform.

To all five of Quebec's demands, in other words, the rest of the country is prepared to say yes. There is no reason why saying no to Meech Lake should imply a rejection of Quebec's constitutional concerns. Yet the constant, indeed the only, argument presented for Meech Lake is that the five demands are the most reasonable terms Quebec is ever likely to set. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. But what have they to do with Meech Lake?

If Canada should die because of a profound disagreement between its two linguistic communities over the direction of the country, which no amount of negotiation could bridge, that would be sad, and frustrating, and an indictment of us all. But for the country to break apart for no reason whatever is almost comic.