Who's Online

We have 331 guests online


5800 readings
New Orleans SPP Summit: Fraser Institute dupes the public by rebranding SPP as North American Standards and Regulatory Area PDF Print E-mail
Earth News
Written by admin
Monday, 21 April 2008 02:10

2008 april 24

New Orleans SPP Summit: Fraser Institute dupes the public by rebranding SPP as North American Standards and Regulatory Area

PEJ news - Joan Russow- Global Compliance Research Project - In the Canadian Fraser Institute’s paper entitled “Saving the North American Security and Prosperity Partnership” (SPP), the Institute is calling for a re-branding of the SPP as the “North American Standards and Regulatory Area” (NASRA). The Fraser institute is misleading the public by suggesting that the SPP stands for Standards and Regulations when it clearly stands for undermining and relaxing standards and regulations. The Fraser Institute misleads not only the public but also the government by claiming that one of its activities is the “environment”. A complaint against the charitable Status of the Fraser Institute was filed today.




In the SPP, there are calls for “harmonizing standards’ generally to descend to the lowest common denominator. When the Canadian Fraser Institute advances NASRA, they are not calling for corporate compliance and state enforcement of international norms such as the invoking the precautionary principle, the reducing of the ecological footprint, the preventing of the transfer to other states of substances or activities that are harmful to the environment or to human health etc.; principles that have been adopted unanimously by the international community through UN Conference Action Plans and Declarations.

The Fraser Institute through its North American Standards and Regulatory (NASRA) branding is calling for the relaxing of environmental standards and regulations to enhance “corporate competitiveness” in North America.

In rebranding the SPP, the Fraser Institute is not opposing the SPP but is countering opposition to the SPP. Under the SPP, there are provisions that would lead to increased destruction of the environment: (i) “testing once” and (ii) “reliance on testing by the private sector”.

(i) “testing once” Under the SPP there is a call to eliminate redundancy by testing once so that if a product is tested in one of the three countries it does not have to be tested in the other two. This practice would undermine the ability of states to carry out their own tests and ban substances such as the banning by Canada of RBST or Bovine Growth Hormone in milk. [unfortunately, there is evidence that bulk milk imports into Canada have been able to bypass the ban (personal communication from Representative from the Canadian Environment Commissioner’s office)

(ii) Reliance on private sector testing

Currently under US law, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required to annually justify before Congress, the cost of public in-house testing when the private sector has already carried out the tests.


The Fraser Institute, in its paper Saving the North American Security and Prosperity Partnership: the Institute is calling for a re-branding of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) as North American Standards and Regulatory Area (NASRA). The Paper concludes that the Canadian government must create both short and long-term strategies to expand and speed up the SPP goals. Re-branding the SPP talks and making them more productive, as well as explaining the specific objectives of the talks to the public must be the priority of the SPP summit in April 2008.The Fraser Institute / March 2008.

In its support for the SPP, and for the rebranding of the SPP Agreement as NASRA, the Fraser Institute is not advocating the protection of the environment. Yet, the Fraser Institute has as one of its activities: Environment.

The Fraser Institute has Charitable Status, and claims that it is a Community Organizations, and a charitable organization. As a result of its Status it is able to issue tax receipts. In its 2006 required submission to government, it indicated that it spent 23 million dollars on its activities, projects, salaries etc.

The Institute lists its activities as “Research (scientific, medical, environmental, etc.) and its on-going program “to carry out research on the following topics-… Environment etc.

Under Revenue Canada there is the following limitation:
“Activities must relate directly to the registered charities' purposes. Registered charities are not permitted to commit their resources to campaigning on issues, policies, and laws that are unrelated to their formal purposes. For example, a registered charity established to protect the environment may press a government on its environmental policies but not on an unrelated issue such as prison reform.”

The Government uses an interesting example to illustrate this point. It could be said that the Fraser Institute by stating only “environment” and not “to protect the environment” is carrying out its registered purpose even though throughout its history, it has engaged primarily in anti-environmental activities.

For example, in 1998, the Fraser Institute held a conference on Climate Change and invited professors who were denying the existence of the problem of climate change. At the Conference it was mentioned that Canada and the US had signed and ratified the Framework Convention on Climate Change, and that under the Convention the precautionary Principe was explicitly mentioned One of the Scientists reversed the principle ( which reads where there is a threat of Climate Change, the lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason to postpone measures to prevent the threat) and stated where there is a threat to the economy…

C7 – Political activities:
Check “Yes” if the registered charity carried out political activities. We presume an activity to be political if a charity:
(a) explicitly communicates a call to political action (i.e., encourages the public to contact an elected representative or public official and urges them to retain, oppose, or change the law, policy, or decision of any level of government in Canada or a foreign country);
(b) explicitly communicates to the public that the law, policy, or decision of any level of government in Canada or a foreign country should be retained (if the retention of the law, policy or decision is
being reconsidered by a government), opposed, or changed; or
(c) explicitly states in its materials (whether internal or external) that the intention of the activity is to incite, or organize to put pressure on, an elected representative or public official to retain, oppose, or change the law, policy, or decision of any level of government in Canada or a foreign country.

Today, April 21, 2008. I filed a complaint against the Fraser Institute; the complaint called for the revoking of its charitable status.



Last Updated on Friday, 01 March 2019 21:32

Latest News