THERE MAY WELL BE no better time than today for the governments of Canada and the United States to discuss the possibility of a customs union.

The absence of such a union comes at a time when one has long been used successfully in Europe, albeit as part of an economic union that includes a parliament and a currency, the euro, used by many of its member states.

For North American tourists, the advent of Europe’s customs union has meant passports are no longer required to move about anywhere in the European Union (EU) — even between states that were enemies in the Second World War and some that until 20 years ago were separated by the Iron Curtain.

Today, one of the most impressive experiences to be found anywhere in Europe is the crossing of borders that were once staffed by hordes of armed guards as well as customs and immigration officials. Something that as recently as the late 1980s could take hours in frustrating lineups today occurs in precisely the same manner as crossing between Ontario and Manitoba or Quebec; there’s no need for you to slow down, much less stop for a customs inspection.

And what a contrast that is to the situation in North America, where, post- 9/11, the Canada-U.S. border is fast becoming as tough to cross as that between East and West Germany in the days of the Berlin Wall.

Today, what once was described as the world’s longest undefended border is the scene of literally thousands of armed U.S. border guards, and Canadians who used to journey south with no better identification than a birth certificate and driver’s licence must now also produce a valid passport.

For Americans who might want to vacation in Canada, the trip north similarly requires a passport that few of them have, albeit only so they can return home, since Canada doesn’t require them to produce passports when they come here.

The damage done to Canada’s tourist industry is surely incalculable, but must run to billions of dollars annually.

The European example demonstrates that such a union need not be accompanied by any country’s loss of identity or even its ability to monitor those who arrive from outside the EU by sea or air. Anyone arriving at London’s Heathrow Airport or Charles De Gaulle airport in Paris must clear British or French Customs.

Strangely, the pros and cons of a Canada-U.S. customs union appear to have received little or no consideration by Canadian politicians — even those who campaigned successfully for the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.

Today, all the Harper Conservatives have been pushing for is ratification of a similar agreement with Colombia, something that will have little or no recognizable impact on the average Canadian, Colombian coffee being already freely available here.

A Google search for any recent discussion of the subject turned up nothing more current than a federal discussion paper from June 2005 and a 2004 diatribe against the idea which concluded that it would benefit only big business at the expense of ordinary Canadians.

Prepared by The Centre for Trade Policy and Law, the discussion paper analyzed a range of policy implications that would arise from a Canada- US customs union, concluding that while negotiation of such a union would require a high degree of economic integration and policy convergence, the benefits of union would outweigh the disadvantages.

The paper found a customs union would include these features:

• a single customs territory, allowing for the free circulation of all goods within the union;

• a common external tariff, with flexibility to maintain separate external rates over a transition period for some products;

• provisions for sensitive sectors such as clothing, agriculture, culture and recognition of the importance of the energy sector;

• reconciling the differences in the two countries’ current free trade and preferential trade arrangements with other countries respecting product coverage, rules of origin, and possible future free trade partners;

• a common approach to trade remedy laws that would imply a single regime for third countries;

• a common external trade policy;

• dispute settlement based on the current NAFTA provisions with some major updating, and

• institutions for administering the union, resolving disputes, and facilitating dynamic, joint policy development, drawing on existing models such as the International Joint Commission.

Challenging? Yes, but hardly as much as the negotiations must have been among European nations with no common ancestry or language.

The negotiators would soon discover that even when it comes to matters such as the threats posed by terrorists and drug traffickers, the two nations have a common interest in combatting such threats the normal way — with police instead of customs officials.