If we are agreed that constitutional change can never again be left to a covey of first ministers to decide, then why are we still arguing over which of these clowns should have the last word on Senate reform? The issue should not be whether the province of Quebec should have a veto so much as whether the government of Quebec should be so empowered.

That this distinction should not seem self-evident is testimony to the remarkable extent to which discussion in the nation's media, both English and French, has been colonized by Quebec nationalists. Every aspect of the Meech Lake debate now comes to us filtered through the nationalist perspective. One expects this from the Quebec media, but it is simply nauseating to see how craven the Ottawa and Toronto press corps have become.

Thus one must endure a stream of confident pronouncements on the state of mind of Quebecers, every one of which concludes that the separatist march through history is reaching its inevitable terminus. Abundant evidence to the contrary - that in fact Quebecers' allegiances are as ambiguous and complex as ever - is consistently ignored or downplayed.

Every commentator in the country insisted, for example, that Jean Chretien hadn't a chance of taking Quebec in the Liberal leadership race. As a federalist, he was ''out of touch'' with the ''new'' Quebec. Chretien won two thirds of the delegates, you say? Ah, but the Liberal Party is an insignificant rump in Quebec. So insignificant that it attracted a mere 50% support in the latest Gallup poll, to 23% for the Tories.

Vapid sense

It is possible this readiness to believe Quebec can't separate soon enough merely reflects the vapid sense of nationhood - Canada as a cluster of Crown corporations - still dominant in the English media. Since they haven't got a clue themselves why they wish to be Canadians, they can't imagine why Quebecers would either. But I think a broader nationalist affinity is at work.

So, too, the interests and aspirations of Quebec are exclusively identified with those of its government. If Rene Levesque rejected the Constitution of 1982, then so must have Quebecers. If Robert Bourassa demands the power to subvert the human rights of Quebecers, why, the simple folk must desire it. It has ever been the nationalist ambition, as Quebec Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Gil Remillard reiterated recently, to fuse the nation with the state. What is new is the eagerness with which the government of Canada, and its splendid courtiers in the media, have taken up their cause.

By dint of shared language and culture, it is only natural that francophone Quebecers should feel a certain kinship, which might be called nationhood, that will, at least in part, find expression through their provincial government. The challenge for Canada has always been to try to wean Quebecers away from that provincial allegiance in favor of the Dominion, through such instruments as the Charter of Rights and others.

One can never quite be sure where Quebecers' sympathies lie on any given issue. It may be that the premier speaks for Quebecers, but we should not automatically assume it. The one time Quebecers were asked more or less directly, in the 1980 referendum, they chose Canada. For the rest, all is murky. The Quebec question is one always to be asked, and never answered.

Certainly one cannot attempt to answer it by harnessing Quebec nationalism to the federal cause. The two are inevitably antagonistic. That was the fatal mistake of Meech Lake, for it hands Quebec nationalists the tools to disengage Quebec from Canada, whether directly through the distinct society clause, or indirectly, through the permanent bargaining chip of the constitutional veto.

To give the veto to the government of Quebec, which by natural selection will reflect the nationalist half of Quebec's personality, is reckless folly. The problem is that this has become tangled up with the quite different question of whether Quebec itself has a right to protect its constitutional position from majority intrusion.

In certain matters, such as language and culture, it clearly should. One might even grant it such a veto over fundamental constitutional changes of any kind, on this proviso: that such questions be put to a referendum, requiring double assent - in Canada as a whole, and in Quebec - for passage (whether by simple majority or something more substantial is another question).

The full complexity of Quebec's views of Confederation cannot be ascertained in the preferences of its premier, any more than Canada's can be expressed by the desires of the first ministers. We must go over their heads, and appeal directly to the people. Then, and only then, will we truly see who speaks for Canada, and for Quebec.