What more is there to say? That question may well have crossed the minds of many Canadians upon hearing that the new U.S. ambassador to Canada, David Wilkins, had called for a fresh round of negotiations to resolve the long-standing fight over softwood lumber shipped south from this country. "People should downplay what's happened so far, close the door and roll up their sleeves," Wilkins said on Aug. 17.

What's happened so far is three North American Free Trade Agreement panels have ruled that Canada's provincial governments do not unfairly subsidize softwood, nor has Canadian softwood damaged the U.S. lumber industry. The World Trade Organization has ruled in Canada's favour. And in early August, NAFTA's three'-member extraordinary challenge committee, the court of final appeal in such matters, sided with Canada. At that point, the U.S. government should have removed the softwood duties it imposes, which can run up to 27 per cent, and returned the $5 billion it has collected so far.

But Washington refused to adhere to the ruling and declared that it would not refund the billions skimmed off Canadian imports. The U.S. position is bewildering and exasperating. It tests the conviction of all those who believe in open borders and free trade. It appears to make a mockery of rule of law. It seems to be nothing more than bullying by the big guy and it has led to calls for retaliation, even a trade war.

"What's the point of having a mechanism to resolve disputes when the other side just simply ignores it," asked Brian Payne, president of the 162,000-member Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada. "The Canadian government has to show some guts on this issue. You can't just be a one-way street. Obviously, it's a dramatic thing to say: 'Turn off the tap.' There's some quid pro quo in life."

Simon Reisman and several other former officials who were instrumental in negotiating the original 1988 Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement added some inflammatory rhetoric to the fire. "I would sit them down and I would say: 'All right, enough of this. You are out of line, and you know you are out of line,' " Reisman said. "Set a deadline and if they persist in this, then there might be no choice but to act in retaliation."

So, perhaps the moment has arrived when the Canadian mouse kicks the American elephant in the shin. But this is a risky proposition for two reasons. First, we can always whack the Americans, but they carry bigger sticks than we do. We are far more dependent on the bilateral relationship than they are. Therefore, any disruption will do far more damage to our economy than theirs.

Second, a trade war would inevitably become a civil war in this country on multiple fronts. If we began to impose duties on U.S. goods coming into Canada, they could do the same to goods and commodities going south. The result would be an ungodly mess in which industry fought industry, consumers fumed at producers and regions were at loggerheads with regions.

It's safe to say that the Alberta oil and gas industry, not to mention the Alberta government, would never contemplate turning off the taps to assist their brethren in the B.C. forest industry. Ontario consumers would never agree to tariffs on produce from California or Florida even if it meant protecting the jobs of loggers in B.C., Quebec and New Brunswick. Anything that disrupted the flow of U.S. goods into Canada could lead to a truly calamitous response - like legislation to stop the trucking of Toronto's garbage to dumpsites in Michigan for disposal.

Or, imagine the furore if the United States tightened access at border crossings. In a matter of days, perhaps hours, truckers would be lined up for a hundred kilometres outside Windsor, Niagara Falls and White Rock, B.C.

We may be saddled with a weak and indecisive minority government at the moment, but the Liberals led by Prime Minister Paul Martin do have a knack for survival and that is why they have not behaved rashly in the face of American bullying.

They are aware of the consequences of provoking Uncle Sam. They have, therefore, made all the right noises. Ministers expressed indignation. They walked away from a round of planned negotiations aimed at resolving the dispute - a move that was symbolic rather than substantive.

You can bet, though, that the government is listening to Paul Tellier on this file and not those banging the drums and calling for war. Tellier, a clerk of the Privy Council under Brian Mulroney and former CEO of both CN Rail and Bombardier, has been Canada's representative in the softwood talks since March and he concurs with Ambassador Wilkins. "I am not for a trade war," he told reporters last week. "I'm very much in favour of negotiations and making sure the agreements we have are respected."

That approach won't satisfy everyone, but it is a safe way for mice to run with elephants without getting trampled.

(D'Arcy Jenish can be reached at jenish@businessedge.ca)