Canada is heading into a winter election.
There are all kinds of issues on the table.

This remains one.
Two generations have worked to settle this softwood lumber dispute.
So when I see the rhetoric being turned up, my hope is that Canadians that have not been directly affected will start to understand our options.

McKenna likened Washington’s action to attempting to change the rules of the game after you’ve lost.

“You can’t carry out your appeal all the way through to conclusion and then say, when you lose, ‘well, that doesn’t count, we have a superseding set of facts which change the situation.’

“If that were the case, then why did you bring the appeal?” McKenna continued. “Why did you carry it through? It’s like playing a game of poker and if you lose the hand, saying well, let’s negotiate the pie.”

Last week, U.S. ambassador to Canada David Wilkins set off a maelstrom of debate when he said Canada should stop using “emotional press conferences” to settle the issue and get back to the negotiating table.

There have been rumblings in Canada of retaliatory tariffs on such U.S. exports to this country, such as California wine and Florida orange juice.

Quebec Premier Jean Charest said the issue is “contaminating the relationship between the two countries.”

“It puts us in a position where we ask ourselves whether NAFTA is as important to our American neighbours as it is to us,” Charest said.

Despite the tensions, both McKenna and Wilkins said free trade has served both countries well.

Wilkins described the recent disagreement as a “difference of opinion” on the appeal process, and he told the conference on Monday that the U.S. remains “firmly committed to NAFTA and its close partnership to Canada.

“I can’t state it anymore clearly or firmly than that.”

Wilkins is most welcome to state whatever he wants, new to the job or not.
He isn’t the issue.
The American people aren’t the issue.
Honouring NAFTA rulings are.
Since the US is not prepared to do so, Canada has to look at what wiggle room is left.