|
The Fraser Institute is a libertarian think tank based in Canada. In terms of Canadian political terminology, it is fiscally conservative. It is also a registered charity with the Canada Revenue Agency. Its mandate is to advocate for competitive markets to better provide for the economic and social well-being of all Canadians. It is critical of government spending, high taxes, government deficits, and generally any government action that cannot be supported by Libertarian principles. For example, it supports free trade, closer integration of the Canadian economy with the United States, privatization of government services, and does not support the prohibition of certain drugs, like marijuana. The Fraser Institute is also skeptical of the need for regulatory action against global warming since they support prioritization of environmental initiatives and view climate change regulations as having "the potential to impose high costs on Canadian citizens and drastically increase the regulatory state, while providing little or no environmental benefit." * The institute (named for the Fraser River) is headquartered in Vancouver, British Columbia. It was founded in 1974 by Michael Walker, an economist from the University of Western Ontario who was the first executive director of the FI. The current executive director, Mark Mullins, was the Institute's previous director of Ontario policy studies. As a registered charity in Canada, the Institute must file annual registered charity information returns. In its most recent annual return, the Institute reported having: $10.4 million CAD in assets, $6.9 million CAD in annual revenue, and $6.9 million CAD in annual expenditures.
Funding The last year for which financial data is available for is 2004. The Institute reported in its 2004 year-end annual report that it had $6.9 million CAD in revenues that year. The annual report outlined that 62% of this sum came from charitable foundations, 25% came from organizations including corporations, and 13% came from individuals. These percentages amounted to roughly $4.3 million, $1.7 million, and $0.9 million CAD, respectively. In 2004, $2.1 million, or roughly 49%, of funds donated to the Institute by a charitable foundation came from The W. Garfield Weston Foundation, as per its 2004 registered charity information return with the Canada Revenue Agency. Governance The Institute is governed by a board of trustees. Current members of the board are: Raymond Addington (chairman), Hassan Khosrowshahi (vice-chairman), William Korol (vice-charman), Mark Mitchell (vice-chairman), Lorne Abony, Gordon Arnell, Charles Barlow, Sonja Bata, Edward Belzberg, Everett Berg, Tony Boeckh, T. Patrick Boyle, Peter Brown, Alex Chafuen, James Chaplin, Serge Darkazanli, James Davidson, John Dobson, Greg Fleck, Shaun Francis, Arthur Grunder, John Hagg, Raymond Heung, Paul Hill, Stephen Hynes, David Laidley, Robert Lee, Brandt Louie, David MacKenzie, William Mackness, Jim Main, Fred Mannix, James McGovern, Gwyn Morgan, Mark Mullins, Roger Phillips, Herbert Pinder, R. Jack Pirie, Peter Pocklington, Conrad Riley, Mark Scott, Anthony Sessions, William Siebens, Arni Thorsteinson, Michael Walker, Peter White, and Catherine Windels. Former members of the board of trustees include: Barbara Amiel, David Asper, and David Radler. High-profile figures The Institute has attracted some well-known individuals to its ranks, such as founding member Friedrich Hayek. Former Conservative Premier of Ontario Mike Harris and Preston Manning, the founder of the federal Reform Party, are both senior fellows at the Institute. Controversy Though little known at the time of its founding, the Institute has been a source of controversy since its beginning. It was founded by T.Patrick Boyle with a grant from forestry giant MacMillan Bloedel Limited, at a time when MacMillan-Bloedel was in conflict with the left-wing NDP government of British Columbia then led by Premier Dave Barrett. Critics of the Institute and other similar agenda-driven think tanks have claimed the Fraser Institute's reports, studies and surveys are usually not subject to standard academic peer review or the scholarly method. The accuracy and reliability of the information they produce would therefore often be questioned. However, the Institute's own publications often refer specifically to their own peer review process.** A Google Scholar Search reveals that the Fraser Institute's work is cited more often in peer reviewed journals than the work of any other public policy Institute in Canada. The Institute dedicates less than five percent of its budget to actively promote their findings and their agenda to broadcast and print media, a practice followed by most research foundations or in the research work of university departments. For one example, a 2002 study by Osgoode Hall Law Professor Neil Brooks claimed the Institute's widely promoted Tax Freedom Day, described as the date each year when the average Canadian's income no longer goes to paying government taxes, included flawed accounting. The Brooks study demonstrated how the Institute's methods of accounting excluded several important forms of income and inflated tax figures, moving the date nearly two months later in the year. The Institute points out that Professor Brooks confuses the aggregate tax burden with the tax burden borne by those who actually pay tax. Fraser Institute supporters respond that some of the FI research, like the ''Economic Freedom of the World'' report, have been used in papers that have been peer-reviewed. * They assert many other advocacy organizations like Greenpeace also publish research often not peer-reviewed and actively try promote their findings and agenda. In 1999, the Fraser Institute was attacked by health professionals and scientists for sponsoring two conferences on the tobacco industry entitled "Junk Science, Junk Policy? Managing Risk and Regulation" and "Should government butt out? The pros and cons of tobacco regulation." Critics charged the Institute was associating itself with the tobacco industry's many attempts to discredit authentic scientific work. The group has also come under fire from social conservatives, who feel it is too liberal in matters of social policy. For example, the Institute favors the legalization of marijuana. Though widely respected for its apolitical stance (the Institute refused to align itself with any political party), this reputation has slipped as the Institute brought into its fold former conservative politicians such as former reform party leader Preston Manning and former Ontario Conservative leader Michael Harris. This reputation for impartiality has further come under question since the appointment of executive director Mark Mullins, a former conservative backroom specialist. Publications Notes See Tax Freedom Day - A Flawed, Incoherent, and Pernicious Concept by Professor Neil Brooks. Retrieved December 11, 2005. | ||||||||
|
| |||||||||
 |
|
| |