It is a comment in itself on the present state of Confederation that a political debate between national leaders, conducted in one of the two official national languages, could be so wholly the expression of one province.

Though it was billed as the ''French'' debate, it was in fact the Quebec debate. The moderator and panelists were Quebecois, their concerns exclusively provincial. ''Where will you locate the space agency?'' one demanded. The leaders rushed to assure them Montreal would be their choice.

That will cheer the residents of St. Boniface, Man., or any of the more than half a million French Canadians who do not live in Quebec.

This is the animating ideal of the Meech Lake consensus, the blind mob of politicians, journalists and academics rushing Confederation headlong toward the cliff. The constitutional unit, in this view, is not the individual, but the state, and the bond of nationhood is forged not in the smithy of each individual soul, but in smart deals cut between provinces.

To see French Canada as an idea, a personal affection held within the heart of every Canadien, across the Dominion, rather than a section on a map, or a clause in a contract, is too abstract for this accounting of the nation. To understand the dualism of French and English as a fundamental characteristic of all Canada, not as the clumsy abutting of two unilingual lumps, seems too subtle also.

There is another constitutional vision, once honored, which holds that nationalism begins with individualism: with the equal dignity and equal rights of every individual, in every part of the country; and with the delicate, deliberate creation of national consciousness within each individual.

HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTED

In this view, individual liberty, whatever its intrinsic merits, is inseparable from nationhood. ''Canada is free, and freedom is its nationality,'' Sir Wilfrid Laurier declared. People of goodwill may differ over the division of powers between governments, but human rights must be protected for all.

Similarly, the constitution's role should be to draw the common element of national feeling from each individual into a collective expression. There are more than enough forces at work in this country to shred national consciousness into fragments of regional allegiance. Geography, history, economics, language: for 23 of every 24 hours, it is only natural we should think ourselves Manitobans, or Nova Scotians, or Quebecois first, and to govern ourselves accordingly.

But nationhood has a purpose, and the statement of that national purpose, the evocation of that last hour each day when we think of ourselves as Canadians, is or ought to be found in our Constitution. In that document we expressly defy those many natural properties that isolate and divide us, and summon all that we hold, and that holds us, together.

It must by nature be a work of mystery and illusion. National feeling in the New World is a fragile thing, hard won and soon lost. If the constitution of a nation applies individual rights unequally according to province, then citizenship is defined not as an integral part of, but an accident of location. If the statement of national purpose cannot rise above the everyday reality of regionalism, then it does not elevate national consciousness, but defiles it.

This is where we have come, with the inclusion in the 1982 Constitution of the ''notwithstanding'' clause, inviting any government to mock every right in the Charter simply by ''expressly declaring'' its taunt; and the imminent addition, through the 1987 Meech Lake Accord, of the clause defining Quebec as a ''distinct society,'' and Canada as two nations, French within Quebec, English without. To appease the provinces, and now to ransom the Constitution from Quebec, we have gutted the Charter, and turned our deed of nationhood into an advertisement for separatism.

We are about to see what this means. The Supreme Court will soon rule on the constitutionality of Quebec's language law, Bill 101, prohibiting the use of English on commercial signs. It's a strong likelihood that Premier Robert Bourassa will invoke the ''notwithstanding'' clause to escape the ruling. With federalists routed and minority rights on the run, there is little political gain in accepting the verdict and much to lose.

Or, he may accept the ruling for the time being, promising to restore the law under the ''distinct society'' clause if and when Meech Lake kicks in. Either way, we will be reminded that Canada's constitutional credo is human rights if necessary, but not necessarily human rights. And that we are a nation in name only.