The decadence of Canadian federalism may be measured by the purrs of pleasure in various corners of the country at the latest constitutional position of the Quebec Liberal Party. It is, perhaps, progress that the self-proclaimed champion of federalism in Quebec is no longer actively flirting with separatism. But the report of the party's Committee on the Evolution of Canadian Federalism is not quite federalist, either. Its guiding ideal might better be described as inter-provincialism.

To be sure, this places it squarely within the mainstream of current political orthodoxy. The document is, on the whole, constructive, thoughtful and moderate in tone. Gone are the demands for the wholesale devolution of federal powers contained in the Allaire report; indeed, it paints a portrait of a country that has already gone to considerable lengths to accommodate Quebec's demands for autonomy. †Canadians are seen to share certain common values; the federal government is acknowledged to have some legitimate responsibilities; the country, it is suggested, works tolerably well.

There is even a kind word or two for the Constitution Act of 1982.

But if the report seems reasonable, compared to the positions the party has taken in previous years, that only underscores how unreasonable is the context in which it appears. Where it praises federalism, it is almost always to emphasize how little it has hindered the realization of the greater destiny of Quebec. Where it proposes changes, it is almost always to reduce still further the application of federal law and the powers of federal institutions in Quebec -- certainly never to increase them. And if the party is no longer prepared actually to hold the infamous "knife at the throat," it is not above invoking †the dire consequences that would follow if its "demands" are not met. Quebecers have chosen to remain Canadians, it reminds us, but they "remain masters of their destiny and will always have the right to rethink their choice." The good news, then, is that the QLP recognizes that Canada ain't broke.

The bad news is, it still wants to fix it. If the report marks a break with the aggrieved tone of the recent past, in other ways it merely takes us full circle, back to the position the party proposed †10 years ago -- just before Meech Lake. "Distinct society" is still there, of course -- and in case anyone has any doubts whether it would carry legal weight, the report is at pains to stress that it would be an interpretive clause, not merely a symbolic affirmation. It would achieve, it notes, "the reconciliation," where they conflict, of the federal Charter of Rights and the provincial Charter of the French Language, which "would guarantee the taking into account of our uniqueness." "Such a measure," it concedes, "could appear to be contrary to the principles of liberalism. But it is essential that we avoid being guided too easily in these matters by the American model." Liberty and equality, you see, are relative notions, and we should not get too hung up on formalistic concerns.

The same fudge is smeared over the doctrine of provincial equality: wonderful idea, love the concept, but, after all, equal status does not require equal treatment. "It is important not to lose sight of the much richer idea of equity between regions and communities in the light of the abstract theory of the arithmetic equality of the provinces." You may decide for yourself what this means, but two things it explicitly does not mean are equal powers or equal representation in the Senate.

The report is at its most disappointing in the matter of how best to maintain the economic and social union. It acknowledges the importance of an internal common market, and of national standards: good. It states and restates that neither level of government, federal and provincial, is superior to the other, but that each is sovereign in its own sphere, as delegees of a common popular sovereignty: marvellous. But does it then recognize the right of the federal government to exercise what are quintessentially federal responsibilities? No. All is to be negotiated and decided between the provinces.

There is even to be created a third order of government to oversee the economic union, "under provincial authority" -- bypassing Ottawa altogether. The most the federal government could do -- on the economic union, on national standards, even in the use of its own spending power -- would be to make proposals, which the provinces could take or leave -- with each retaining the right even to opt out of the decisions of its fellow provinces.

As pleasant as it may be in tone, it remains an unpleasant mix, in substance: Distinct society, devolution, a hamstrung federal spending power, no Senate reform -- in short, precisely the same position as the federal Liberal party.