Since 1945, no province has tried harder than Quebec to reform the institutions of Canadian federalism. Yet, insofar as these efforts have often taken the shape of a drive for sovereignty, they have probably also been the biggest obstacle to a successful transformation of the federation. Thus, Quebec simultaneously fuels and chokes the reform engine.

But the paradox can take a different shape.

The Canadian state and Canadian intellectuals are the champions of federalism. Canada is the sponsor of an international organization called the Committee for a Forum of the Federations, which will hold a major conference next October in Mont-Tremblant, Quebec, and former Ontario premier, Bob Rae, will play a pivotal role in this forum. The meeting will try to develop a network of experts and civil servants with differing perspectives on the theory and practice of federalism.

Why should Canada play a leading role in this forum? Michael Ignatieff gave one answer at the beginning of this decade: "Other people besides Canadians should be concerned if Canada dies. If federalism can't work in my Canada, it probably can't work anywhere."

Canadians champion federalism, but since the last Quebec referendum there has been almost no sustained evaluation of the federal political system in this country. Many people believe such an examination would play into the hands of separatists. So what should preoccupy us if the unity issue is ever successfully resolved? I think Canadians should examine seriously the nature and state of their federal institutions.

The Supreme Court of Canada, in its decision last year on the reference case concerning the secession of Quebec, identified four principles at the heart of our political and legal systems: federalism; democracy; constitutionalism and the rule of law; and, finally, respect for the rights of minorities. The judgement was an ode to the nobility and pre-eminence of federalism in Canada. However, I think the Supreme Court neglected the content of our two most important legal documents, the Constitution Acts of 1867 and 1982.

In 1867, the Canadian Dominion was part of the British Empire. A hierarchical structure was created, with Westminster above the Dominion and the provinces subordinate to Ottawa. British politicians and civil servants were among the Fathers of Confederation, and they made sure the imperial principle would be at least as important as the federal one in the institutional balance of the time. Throughout the twentieth century, Canada has gradually liberated itself from Westminster's imperial control over our politics.

However, the same point cannot be made with regard to the relationship between Ottawa and the provinces. Beyond the symbolism of the constitutional monarchy, Ottawa has retained a wide array of powers over the provinces that have more to do with imperialism than with federalism. (For instance, the ability to legislate in all fields, to move into the competences of the provinces, and to reserve and disallow provincial legislation.) That they are seldom used does not render these powers non-existent. Moreover, their mere existence creates a certain climate, a national political habit of seeing Ottawa as the senior government and the others as distant juniors. Beyond the customary rhetoric concerning the number and identity of "nations" within Canada, this imbalance is the real, lasting status quo.

If Canadians are as serious as their central government claims about federalism, then the legal and political relationships between Ottawa and the provinces should be rebuilt around co-ordination rather than subordination. This point has been made eloquently by the champions of federalism in Quebec, from the late André Laurendeau, to such a respected figure as Claude Ryan.

As a guiding star, federalism was not as important in 1867 as the Supreme Court has claimed. Nor was it in 1982. Most experts recognise that the Charter of Rights has weakened the place of the federal principle in our political culture. The first section of the Charter establishes there are reasonable limits to the exercise of rights in a "free and democatic society". Whenever judges have to interpret this key part of the Charter in constitutional disputes, they are not instructed to take into consideration the federal nature of Canada. If federalism is our guiding star, shouldn't our Charter proclaim to the world that we are a free and democratic federation?

So if the unity issue is ever laid to rest, modernizing institutions to make them compatible with the spirit of federalism should occupy centre stage in Canadian politics. This would involve, first and foremost, a new mechanism for judiciary appointments. Supreme Court justices should not merely be designated by the Prime Minister. This process has nothing to do with federalism and it weakens the legitimacy of the tribunal.

The same argument must be made with regard to the Senate. In modern federations, such as Belgium and Germany, second legislative chambers are effective channels of co-ordination between partners. The Canadian federation has no permanent, day-to-day mechanism for this co-ordination. Ronald Watts, a former Principal of Queen's University and Canada's pre-eminent expert on federalism, has this to say about our Senate: "Where senators are appointed by the federal government, as in Canada, they have the least credibility as spokespersons for regional interests, even when they are residents of the regions they represent."

All too often in Canada, reinforcing federalism means strengthening the central government. A reformed Senate would give us a healthier federation by enabling provincial authorities to participate in making legislation at the centre, thereby placing additional checks and balances in the working of our institutions.

Championing federalism in Canada will also require curtailing the powers of the Prime Minister. Jean Chrétien has the powers of an emperor, as we have been reminded by Donald Savoie, past president of the Canadian Political Science Association and a Liberal insider from New Brunswick. Around the Prime Minister, according to Professor Savoie, "Dissent, let alone defiance, is nonexistent," and, "[C]oncentrating so much power in the hands of one individual and a handful of courtiers is fraught with danger."

Changing the way Supreme Court judges are nominated and redesigning the Senate would significantly reduce the powers of the Prime Minister. What else could be done? I think our current practice of ad hoc federal-provincial conferences should be replaced by a Federal Council, co-chaired by the Prime Minister and by a representative from the group of premiers. The current process, which allows Ottawa to dictate the agenda and control the meetings, reflects much that is wrong with federalism in Canada.

No matter what happens to the Canadian federation in the years to come I will, of course, teach my kids that Canada deserves its reputation as an extraordinary country. However, I will add that our political system does not measure up to our fame abroad. We talk more about federalism than we practice it in our institutions. If we can ever get beyond the impasse with Quebec, we should act more and talk less.