Tuesday, May 20 Sifting through the national unity positions of the three main federal parties - - the NDP having made almost as trivial a mark on this issue as it has on most others -- the choice before Canadians seems clear enough. They must decide which is most important to them: to persuade Quebecers to remain within Canada, to protect their interests if Quebec leaves, or to ensure that, however Quebec votes, the country stays together. In brief, their choice will depend on whether they expect their government to win the next referendum, lose the referendum, or, in essence, ignore the referendum.

The Conservatives have plainly nailed their colours to the first option, sometimes referred to as Plan A. At its best, this emerges in the party's proposals for a "Canadian covenant," a set of rules to govern the social and economic union, to be negotiated between the federal and provincial governments. The federal government would offer the provinces a larger share of tax revenues -- so-called tax points -- enough to replace current federal transfers for health care, social assistance and higher education.

In exchange for that tempting offer, the Tories would demand that the provinces agree to certain unspecified national standards in social programs.

The party promises these would be accompanied by "binding enforcement mechanisms," though again these are not spelled out. Where the Tory platform is more specific is in the area of internal free trade. Here the tax- point carrot is backed by the stick of federal intervention, under the constitution's "trade and commerce" power. The provinces would agree to establish an Inter-Provincial Trade Commission to enforce the common market, or have one imposed on them.

These are intriguing, even bold proposals, proof that remaking the federation does not have to mean unmaking it. Yet the Conservatives remain wedded to the notion of a constitutional amendment instructing the courts to interpret the constitution in light of Quebec's "distinctiveness," even if they have backed away from the precise "distinct society" formulation.

The Reform party has made itself distinct from the other two parties in opposition to the distinct society clause. Yet, despite the widespread misgivings about the idea among Canadians outside Quebec, the issue has not caused quite the conflagration the party had been banking on, especially in Ontario. Perhaps this is because the chances of it becoming a reality seem so remote. Federal law makes any such amendment impossible without the consent of B.C. and Alberta; provincial law in each of these provinces makes such consent impossible without popular approval in a referendum.

Reform makes a more creative contribution to the national unity debate in its insistence on democratizing our national institutions: an elected Senate, more free votes in the Commons, greater citizen control of the legislative process through the instruments of referendum and recall. Much of the demand for devolution of federal powers among Canada's less populated regions is, I think, a proxy for greater input into federal decisions. Yet Reform continues to push for wholesale decentralization, paying only lip service to a stronger federal role in such matters as the economic union.

And if the Tories seem obsessed with the need to "win the next referendum," to the point of refusing even to consider any other possibility, Reform seems all too prepared to concede defeat. The party would accept 50 per cent plus one as sufficient mandate to negotiate the breakup of the country, placing its faith in setting tough exit conditions: ostensibly to deter Quebecers from proceeding further, but perhaps, one cannot help feeling, with narrower motives in mind.

This is to be distinguished from the Liberal position. With increasing forthrightness, the Grits have been insisting not so much on raising the price of separation -- Plan B -- as on raising the bar even to negotiating it. Yes, the party has been appallingly supine on this question in the past; yes, they should never have participated in the last referendum. But since then it has been the Liberals who have taken the lead in demanding that the rule of law be respected in any secession bid, that the referendum question be clear, and that more than a mere majority of Quebecers be required to ratify it: minimal conditions, to be sure, and far from the explicit refusal to recognize any right to secession that some of us might prefer, but a long way further down that road than either of the other two parties -- especially the Conservatives.

Indeed, even if the Liberals do not rule out secession in principle, they seem intent on making it impossible in practice.

The Liberals have made no proposals, creative or otherwise, for reshaping the federation, other than a vague and probably insincere pledge to push for the "distinct society" clause; they seem actively hostile to democratic reforms at the centre. But if the most immediate threat to the country is the prospect of another referendum, then Canadians may prefer the Liberals' priorities to those of their rivals.