NORTH AMERICA'S REMARKABLE RELUCTANCE TO BUILD A COMMUNITY

Who knew Valery Giscard d'Estaing was still alive?

The former French president - he of the haughty tone - disappeared in 1981
after failing to win re-election. But he's back, and as Europe's James Madison.

Mr. Giscard d'Estaing will soon unveil the European constitution he's been
drafting since early 2002 with 105 other delegates.

Europe's bitter divisions over Iraq apparently haven't kept them from
reaching a rough consensus.

The objective: to chart the continent's course by consolidating the dozens
of legal documents that govern the European Union into a "single legal
personality" written with some declaratory pizzazz.

Democratic rules are to be strengthened to build EU legitimacy among the
citizens of the 15 member states and the 10 set to join soon. Mr. Giscard
d'Estaing's preamble speaks of "an ever closer union of the peoples of
Europe." But details remain unclear.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair is reportedly winning a fight to remove
the word "federal," which he feared would accelerate consolidation of
powers in Brussels at the expense of national governments.

Britain often remains the odd man out in things European - the loath
integrationist. Days before Mr. Giscard d'Estaing is to present his
handiwork to Europe's leaders in mid-June, Mr. Blair is expected to
announce it's not yet time to drop the pound for the euro.

Still, European consolidation is an ocean liner that won't be turned around.

Mr. Blair knows Britain's real debate isn't between federalists and
Euroskeptics, but over how best to manage Britain's role within Europe to
maximize its influence. The country's course was set in 1975 when the
British chose in a referendum to remain in what was then the European
Economic Community.

What does any of this mean for Canada? The historical circumstances are
vastly different, but it again highlights North America's remarkable
reluctance to begin constructing a continental community.

Europe has eliminated physical borders, expanding citizens' rights by
freeing them to live and work where they please. In North America,
meanwhile, borders are becoming more intrusive.

The Bush administration's iron-souled response to Sept. 11 is causing this,
but the Chretien government hasn't responded by balancing the demands of
sovereignty and national interest.

National interest demands a perimeter approach to security, among other
things, but Ottawa is caught in amber - tinkering, seeking to avoid the
unavoidable.

Canada's Rubicon was the 1988 election.

The economic integration caused by free trade forces Canada to examine
issues differently. There no longer is a clear delineation between domestic
and international. It is Canada's sovereign right to decriminalize
marijuana, for example, but it would be an act of hubris to do so without
taking into account Washington's response.

That's just self-interest. Much of Canada's illegal marijuana production is
shipped south; to ignore this and mouth platitudes about sovereignty is to
invite even greater U.S. border surveillance. And that will only gum up the
north-south economic ties that secure this country's prosperity. Canada,
after all, is a border country.

The Canadian Shield and the Arctic fuel the imagination, but Canada really
is Chile turned on its side - a long, thinly populated strip hard up
against a border that's now unnecessarily sticky.

It's tough when the country on the other side is the global hegemon, run by
the most radical administration in a century.

When it comes to contraband, we have every reason to say guns when they say
marijuana. It's an uphill struggle to get them to recognize our interests.

But that's no excuse for the junior partner to ignore the obvious demands
made by the relationship.

Sheila Copps suggests that signing on to the U.S. missile defence program
would amount to putting up "a wall around North America." But this decision
is virtually self-evident. Like Mr. Blair and Europe, Canada needs to
maximize whatever leverage it can muster with the United States. The way to
do that may well be, in certain circumstances, to help put up a wall around
the continent - and that shouldn't be considered invariably negative.

The alternative is to put up a wall between Canada and the United States,
and that would be disastrous. Most Canadians recognize this, even if some
politicians (and not just Ms. Copps) still don't.