About a week and a half ago I was talking to a friend in the softwood lumber industry who was quite irked at what he had watched earlier that day on CPAC. (August 21,2006)

During the committee hearings (Standing Committee on International Trade) he said a lawyer had stated very plainly that part of the settlement of the softwood lumber dispute involved Canada contributing 450 million dollars to the White House.

Don’t misunderstand me, I believe him, I’d trust him with my life, and when it comes to the industry, he knows what he is talking about, and his anger and disgust was real. But I was incredulous.

When the Softwood lumber deal was tentatively agreed to in Geneva by International Trade Minister David Emerson and his US counterparts in July, one of the provisions was the ability of each country to make minor changes as they hammered it out with their respective industries. Somewhere between July 1 and a few weeks ago the White House got 450 million for it’s slush fund; because in going through the 85 pages of the July agreement I didn’t see it.  Because I couldn’t find a clause or anything in the news, I didn’t post it. I could not find that money in that July agreement. If it’s there, I’d be happy to have someone point it out.
In fairness to my friend I went to CPAC to see if the hearing was going to be re-run or if a transcript was available. Nothing. I checked traditional news outlets and The Hill Times. Nothing.

Since I couldn’t verify what he heard and saw I let it go, but not before asking a friend in the US why the White House would need or want 450 million Canadian taxpayer dollars for a slush fund. He sent me to the GAO - the Government Accountability Office, explaining I didn’t understand the uses of a White House discretionary fund.
He is correct.
I don’t.
I do not understand why Canada gave G.W Bush’s people that money.  The committee heard the White House money is for:

The deal, he said, will funnel nearly half a billion dollars directly to George Bush’s White House, creating a political “slush fund” available to the Republicans and the U.S. timber industry for waging future campaigns.

I don’t think that was necessary, and nothing I read makes it understandable.
I think it’s flat out wrong.

Now Tyee and Vive le Canada have picked up the information from the committee hearing.
Just about every commenter under these articles make the same assumption I and my friend made and make.
US homeowners have paid a price, the Canadian industry has paid a price and now Canada hands money to a Republican White House. Lawyers and lobbiests have made millions, and now the White House staff get handed what they want for what, a future trade war?

This may be a drop in the bucket in an election year down south, but that is hardly the point.
Why are Canadian taxpayers agreeing to give the White House what could be Republican re-election money?
It is understandably the first thought that would enter most peoples mind.
Someone in Ottawa and Emerson’s department has some serious explaining to do to the Canadian public. And the softwood lumber industry CEO’s have a lot of employees to answer to. Future disputes? Money in the hands of an executive branch of government with no oversight?
The lawyer that made the information available to the committee is Elliot J. Feldman of the US. His ethics are to be commended, no matter what side of the political fence any Canadian is on, or how long this trade war has played out.

So, here we have the government of Canada requiring that Canadian private parties sign over $450 million to an escrow fund slated to be conveyed to the White House. The agreement does not mention Congress, and the Bush administration says that Congress will not be involved in any way with this agreement. The government of Canada thus is making a gift of $450 million to be spent by the president. That was more than a belt buckle, even more than a stetson, on July 6th. There is only one date certain in the deal: that the planned expenditure of the $450 million must be determined by September 1.

Government Accountability Office
Softwood Lumber Agreement July 1, 2006
At Loggerheads - Timeline of the Softwood Lumber dispute