The Hook

The Hook Blog

Political News. Freshly caught. A Tyee Blog

Federal Politics

Investigate $1 billion softwood deal 'slush fund': US Congress members

Eight members of Congress from the Pacific Northwest are asking for an investigation into the part of the softwood lumber agreement that required Canada to send $1 billion to the U.S. timber industry and non-profit groups with ties to that industry.

Critics have called the $1 billion a "slush fund" that, with money taken from Canadian timber revenues, allowed the administration of former Republican president George W. Bush to reward his timber community base and fund foes of the Canadian timber industry.

The story has been reported in The Tyee here and here in an excellent, in-depth article published by the now defunct Seattle Post-Intelligencer, written by reporter Robert McClure.

As McClure summarizes on Investigate West, the online publication where he now reports, here’s how the controversial $1 billion dollar payment came into being.

The U.S. timber industry filed charges against the Canadian timber industry in international trade courts. The Americans alleged the Canadians were getting unfair government subsidies. The Americans lost at nearly every turn. But the U.S. timber industry -- as it increased costs to American consumers -- was bleeding the Canadian timber-cutters dry. How? With tariffs that boosted the price of Canadian timber on this side of the border.

Then, facing the prospect of endless appeals by the Americans, the desperate Canadians -- who had seen mills go dark and were starved for cash -- agreed to a really unusual deal, as international trade pact settlements go: The Bush administration offered to send back to Canada the $5 billion in tariffs collected -- so long as the Canadians agreed to then send $1 billion back across the border, with most of it going to the U.S. timber industry or to non-profit groups with ties to the U.S. industry...

The Washington Forest Law Center, headed by enviro lawyer Peter Goldman, went to court to get documents to build its case that the Bush administration really needed to turn to Congress to decide how to spend the money coming back to the Americans. Their argument: The $1 billion gained in settling the trade suit is public money, and belongs not to the timber-industry-friendly groups that got most of the $1 billion, but to the public. And Congress, under the constitution, is clearly the branch of government that decides how to spend money.

With the Forest Stewardship Council and Conservation Northwest and the Center for Biological Diversity as clients, WFLC next went to court to argue that the whole deal violated the Miscellaneous Receipts Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. They lost in the first round -- lack of standing, the judge said -- but have appealed.

The Congressional request for a probe by the Government Accountability Office (Congress’s investigative arm) came in a letter this week from Sen. Maria Cantwell, who spearheaded earlier efforts to get more information on the deal; U.S. Sens. Patty Murray of Washington and Ron Wyden of Oregon; and Washington U.S. Reps. Jay Inslee, Jim McDermott, Adam Smith and Rick Larsen; and Oregon U.S. Rep. Earl Blumenauer. All are Democrats. Their letter says in part:

"We continue to have questions and concerns about... how the U.S. government distributed funds to these private sector entities, and whether there was sufficient transparency and opportunity for Congressional involvement in the process."

David Beers is editor of The Tyee

1  Comments:

Login or register to post comments

  • blackie

    1 year ago

    setting it straight

    This is a not-bad history of how this mess was created, but there's a couple of salient points missing from the narrative.

    1. There was no tax money involved in this. The $1 billion was owing to Canadian lumber producers who paid the illegal duties on their products. They had to agree to let the money go back the other way.

    2. Harpo and his sidekick David Emerson had to strong arm Canadian producers (and the provincial governments) into going along with this. They snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. If they'd stayed the course, they were only a few months away from getting it ALL back -- and keeping it.

    3. This agreement (SLA) destroyed NAFTA's Chapter 19 dispute settlement process. Say what you will about NAFTA, but Ch. 19 -- if followed to the letter -- had successfully stopped the Americans from arbitrarily destroying Canadian exporters with bogus subsidy claims. It has not been used by anyone since.

    4. The U.S. Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports was broke and on life support leading up to this deal, and would not have survived had Canada stayed the course . The $1 billion infusion (they got half of it) guaranteed they'd be around to fight another day, adequately funded by Canadian producers.

    • No best comments selected by an editor for this story yet. To see all comments, click the All Comments tab, above.
    • The discussion for this story is closed. No more comments can be added.

    Democratic Trust

    About The Hook

    As British Columbia and other jurisdictions consider allowing online voting, can it be made secure enough that people will trust it? Will it encourage more people to vote? But if something goes wrong, will it further erode people's confidence in their democracies? And what role is the media likely to play in shaping the debate?

    These are among the issues to be considered at a May 26 discussion that Fair Voting BC and PartyX are hosting at The Hive in Vancouver. I'll be on the panel, along with UBC Law's Fathima Cader and SFU computer scientist Steve Wolfman. The results and recommendations are to inform the two organizations' public positions on online voting.

    Meanwhile join me and other contributors on The Hook as we bring you the latest from B.C. and across Canada.

    -- Andrew MacLeod