DISCUSSIONS ON CANADA'S POT BILL

Guelph-Wellington Liberal MP Brenda Chamberlain has never concealed her
disagreement with her government's plan to decriminalize marijuana.

Futile or not, popular or not, politically astute or not, her misgivings
are on record and she is entitled to let her opposition to the legislation
be known far and wide, even if she has to shout it from the rooftops.
Indeed, she could be accused of shirking her parliamentary responsibilities
if she did not go public with her objections.

But what were she and other members of a group of dissident Liberal MPs
thinking when they met with the U.S. deputy drug czar in July? Was it to
offer the hand of hospitality to a visiting Washington poo-bah? Or were
they seeking his help in their determination to get their own government's
cannabus reform bill quashed?

The MPs have denied all suggestions that they acted improperly,
underhandedly or that they were seeking the help of Dr. Barry Crane and
other U.S. officials to undermine their government's credibility.
Chamberlain told The Guelph Mercury after the July 8 meeting that she was
there to collect "ammunition" and this week she made it clear that she had
achieved that goal. She and her fellow MPs were advised by Crane that there
would be delays at the international border if the Canadian bill became law.

Fine. But this is not new. Similar words of advice and warning were
available long before the July meeting. Indeed, the vehement opposition of
the White House office on U.S. drug policy to the proposed Canadian
legislation has been abundantly clear at least since May. The Bush
administration's threat to slow down the movement of goods at the border
was first voiced by John Walters, Bush's drug czar (and Crane's boss) when
Canadian government intentions were first made known. The warning has been
helpfully repeated by U.S. Ambassador Paul Cellucci since then.

Washington's message was clear. There would be no compromise and no change.
Whatever Ottawa's legislation was, if it loosened the marijuana laws in any
way, it was wrong and Canadians and their commerce would suffer the
consequences at the border.

Of course, it helps to hear such irrational fulminations with one's own
ears before believing them. But anyone committed to the quaint idea that
the Canadian government should carry out its own investigations, debates
and hearings and make its legislation on that basis could be forgiven for
thinking that Chamberlain and her backbench colleagues had something other
than information gathering in mind. Certainly Prime Minister Jean
Chretien's take has been to suggest that the meeting with Crane amounted to
an invitation by the MPs for the U.S. to intrude further into Canadian affairs.

Chamberlain, it is comforting to know, says the MPs were not attempting to
get the U.S. official to lean on the prime minister. But at the Liberal
Party's Ontario caucus meeting -- a subsection of the national caucus
meeting in North Bay -- a heated discussion on the matter Wednesday clearly
indicated that at least some of Chamberlain's fellow Liberals remain
unconvinced.

The larger unanswered question is: what messages and impressions did Crane
deliver to his White House bosses?