THE LATEST WEED IN THE CANADA-U.S. GARDEN

Think about the tall challenges facing Canada-U.S. relations: whether to go
to war in Iraq; how to resolve the softwood lumber dispute; the wisdom of a
continental missile defence system.

Believe it or not, there's an issue arriving this spring that promises to
overshadow them all: decrim.

Justice Minister Martin Cauchon plans to introduce legislation at the end
of this month that will decriminalize the possession of small amounts of
marijuana, and that will allow people, within reason, to grow their own.

The opposition parties have their reservations, but even the Canadian
Alliance is prepared, at least in principle, to support the legislation.
With any kind of luck, Parliament could adopt the bill before the House
rises in June.

The real opposition may come, not from Parliament, but from south of the
border. Yes, there are parts of the United States, California for example,
where decriminalization is already informally in effect. But California is
not Washington, and the administration of George Bush retains the
traditional Republican determination to wage war against the drug trade on
all fronts.

When Canadian foreign policy types are asked how the Americans will react
to pot decriminalization, the question is greeted with long silences and
glum faces. This is exactly what those who are trying to retain and repair
Canada-U.S. relations don't need.

Americans already look askance at Canada's illicit export industry. "B.C.
bud", as pot smokers affectionately call it, is a particularly potent form
of marijuana that contains THC levels up to five times higher than other
forms of pot. Drug enforcement officials in the U.S. complain that Canadian
exports of marijuana are steadily increasing. It's only a matter of time
before they start imposing countervailing duties, they joke.

Some wags have even jokingly complained in the press that decriminalizing
pot will put a crimp in what is currently a perfect example of laissez
faire economics. After all, pot flows freely across the border,
inconvenienced only by the occasional apprehension and arrest, without
tariffs, duties or even forms to fill out. There are no taxes to be paid,
no Employment Insurance premiums, pension contributions or government red
tape to clog business operations. Pot smuggling is the purest possible
example of the market efficiently meeting a demand.

The Yanks, however, do not view the matter so lightly. Law enforcement
officials from Bismark to Boston are complaining about the influx of
Canadian weed. And now the government plans to eliminate penalties for
possession, which will surely stimulate the domestic industry and increase
exports.

The Americans are warning that border inspectors may be reassigned from the
Mexican frontier to the Canadian, that there will be tougher inspections
and greater delays for legitimate traffic.

For Canadian officials struggling to keep the Canada-U.S. border open in
the era of Fortress America, the government's determination to proceed with
decriminalization seems almost perverse, as though Ottawa were deliberating
seeking to provoke the Americans.

But polls show that as many as 70 per cent of Canadians now favour
decriminalization, and sources report that Prime Minister Jean Chretien has
made up his mind to let the legislation proceed.

Perhaps the timing isn't as bad as it looks. After all, relations with the
Americans are so bad that one more provocation might not make much of a
difference. Maybe now is the time to fling every potential irritant at the
Americans. They couldn't be much more annoyed with us than they are already.

That probably is not the reasoning behind the decision to proceed with
decrim. It just looks that way.

Something to think about: America's determination to oust Saddam Hussein,
and the growing coalition of the unwilling who oppose the war, threaten to
undermine the United Nations and NATO.

But there is another institution integral to the Western Alliance in
danger. The leaders of the G8 group of leading economies are scheduled to
meet in June in Evian, France. Given the poisoned state of relations
between the United States on the one side and France and Germany on the
other, one Canadian diplomat recently speculated that George Bush might
decide not to attend this year's summit. If the President boycotts Evian,
does that mean the end of the G8?

If he does attend, can you imagine the scale of the protests?