[GB] Whose interest does the Fraser Institute serve?
Guest blogger: Gabriel Yiu, former BC NDP candidate for Vancouver Fraserview
To clearly stand out a guest blogger entry, all such headlines will begin with [GB].
A recent book against Asian immigrants published by the right-wing research organization, the Fraser Institute, has raised concerns among the general public, to such a point that federal Immigration minister Jason Kenney had to draw a line publicly to distance his government from the writer who was an MP of the Reform Party.
What the Chinese media is concerned about is that not only has the book denied the contribution of immigrants, but that the publisher of the book is the Fraser Institute. This research institute has a great influence on today’s Canada and on the B.C. government. Whether it’s the Conservative Party’s environmental policy or B.C.’s HST, there is a connection with the institute. The think tank also has a strong presence in the media, e.g. the editor responsible for the major English newspaper’s editorial and opinion pages used to work at the institute.
The Fraser Institute’s anti-immigration stand is nothing new, but the stand was not given a high profile in the past. What this book says, however, is that immigration does no good to our economic development: it is a burden to our society, and would increase government expenses and lead to a hike in taxes. The book also claims immigrants have lowered the living standard of Canada and have a negative effect on the sovereignty, culture and social structure of the country.
The timing of the publication of the book reflects the institute’s tactic to get maximum effect. The book is published at a time of worsening economic downturn, when people worry about job loss and taxpayers are concerned about government raising taxes. The purpose of the book is to attack Canada’s immigration policy and to defame immigrants.
Nevertheless, immigration is not the only target of the Fraser Institute. The right-wing think tank also hosted movie screenings and invited oversea speakers to challenge the consensus of the world’s top scientists that the human factor contributes to climate change.
The Fraser Institute’s action denying climate change and its stout defence of the oil industry’s interest are being criticized by local scholars and the independent media. It has been revealed that big oil companies have handed out millions of dollars to North American right-wing think tanks, which include the Fraser Institute.
Likewise, when the Campbell government was under immense pressure because of the HST, the Fraser Institute stood up, together with representatives of big corporations, to support the new tax.
If one examines the so-called “research” of the right-wing think tank, one will see that it’s all about the interests of big businesses.
I once read a Fraser Institute report comparing the health care systems of Canada and other countries. It was quite biased and figures were manipulated in order to produce the desired result. The Fraser Institute has long been advocating privatizing Canada’s health care and bringing in American big private medical corporations. Again, this is to serve the interests of big businesses.
Last year the Fraser Institute released a report attacking public auto insurance. On its press release, it said: “Independent study after independent study come to the same conclusion: public auto insurance is more expensive on average than competitive, private models, despite contrary claims by government auto insurers.” It sounds so authoritative, but is it true? Well, if one goes to the website of the Canadian Consumers’ Association (http://www.consumer.ca/1525), one will find that the independent organization has done many studies on this same topic, which include a very comprehensive study comparing over 7,000 auto insurance quotes from 40 cities in 10 provinces. The conclusion of all these studies is this: “Public auto insurance systems offer the lowest rates for consumers.”
The Fraser Institute’s so-called “study” not only found a contrary conclusion, it also totally neglected all the studies conducted by the Canadian Consumers’ Association.
So who is more trustworthy? Who is working for the interest of the public and who is serving big business. I will leave it to the readers to draw their own conclusion.
—————————————
Disclaimer: Views expressed by guest bloggers are theirs and may not represent those of CIV.
By inviting guest bloggers to write here, I’d like to see us grow together with more diverse ideas and perspectives. If anyone believe the idea is cool, please don’t hesitate to submit your stuff to me. We use real names and identities here. Thank you.
