It was just last summer that television
cameras showed Michael Walker, the direc-
tor of the Fraser Institute, as he sat down
with the newly-appointed Social Credit
cabinet at an expensive Okanagan resort to
_ discuss future government policy.

- Just a few weeks later, on July 7, the
cabinet fired its machine-gun barrage of
“restraint” legislation, with economic ar-"
tillery support provided by Walker. And
_ suddenly, from being known as a think tank
populated by right wing fringe economists,
the Fraser Institute emerged publicly as a
major shaper of government policy.

_ Now a new study prepared for the
Solidarity Coalition details not only the close
_ parallels between the policy advocated by the
Fraser Institute and those of the Social
_ Credit government — but also includes a list
of all of the Institute’s corporate sponsors.
The list of sponsors is a confidential inter-
- nal document and its release along with the
study prompted the comment from Walker,
“some one must have stolen it.”

The new study, entitled The Fraser In-
stitute, the Government and a Corporate
Free Lunch, was prepared by Cliff Stainsby,
a staff worker with the Society Promoting
Environmental Conservation and B.C.
Teachers’ Federation researcher John
Malcolmson. It was not intended, . as
Malcolmson noted in an interview, to be an

exhaustive study, but rather was produced

quickly in response to the concern over In-
stitute activities among members of the
Solidarity Coalition.

Despite the short time in preparation, the

study is effective in providing the profile of
the Institute as well as the extensive number

~ of major corporations which provide fun-

“The Fraser Institute makes much of the
fact that it receives no government funding
and is therefore independent,’’ the study
notes. ‘‘But who pays the Fraser Insititute’s
bills? If it is possible to claim independence
froma particular group because one receives
no money from that group, then it follows

Caited Besrhe
«Oo Industrie
$ Ltd., Aton
Montreal

Puznps “ Power Lid., Vancouver

Ssaticn ine, Porovito (89)

(22) Kom

ae pos tee

An mite, *

brackets.
letter “I" denotes “Insurance”.

Aberford Resources Ltd., Calgary

Abitibi-Price Inc., Toronto. (49)

AEL Microtel Limited, Burnaby

Jerry J. Agi & Associates, Vancouver

Alberta Distillers Lrd., Vancouver

Alberta Natural Gas Saunane Lrd., Sper
. (275)

Alberta Power Limited, Edmonton
{see Canadian Utilities Limited)

Alberta Energy Company Ltd., Calgary (171)

Aluminum Company of Canada Limited,

Atonzrea! (9)

American Can of Canada Limited, Toronto
3 (157)

American Standard, Toronto

Aadres Wines Limited, Winona, Ontario

Arrow Transportation Systems Inc.,
Vancouver _

Arvak Management Limited, Toronto (423)
Asamera, Inc., Calgary (129)

Associated Engineering Services Limited,
Vancouver

BCA Publications, Montreal
Balfour Guthrie Limite 4, Vancoaver (235)
Bank of Writish Columbia, Vancouver (15F)

Bars of Meateest, Montreal (3F)

. TABLE 6: Fraser Institute Corporate and Affiliate Membership List, September, 1983

This table lists current sponsors of the Institute. Where applicable, the ranking
of the corporation (from the Canadian Business list) follows the corporation in
The letter “F" in brackets denotes “Financial” corporation while the

» Boise Cascade Canada Limited,

Bow Vallcy Industries Ltd., Calsary (145)

Bank of Nova Scotia, Toronto (4F)

Peter Bawden Drilling Ltd., Calgary

Bechtel Foundation of Canada, Toronto (151)
Bell Canada, Montreal (5)

Berryland Canning Company Limited _
Maple Ridge, B.C.

The Birks Family Foundation, Montreal (255)

Fort Frances, Ontario (176)

T.P.Boyle & Associates Ltd., Vancouver
BP Canada, Toronto (45)
Brascan Limited, Toronto (221)

B.C. Coal Limited, Vancouver (102)
(see B.C. Resources Invest. Corp.)

B.C. Forest Products Ltd., Vancouver (91)
B.C. Packers Limited, Vancouver (244)

British Columbia Resources Investment
Corporation, Vancouver (102)

The British Columbis Sugar Refining
Company Limited, Vancouver (343

British Columbia Telephone Company,
Vancouver (62)

B.C. Television Broatcaszing System
Ltd., Vancouver

pages and covers some 310 companies. —
PACIFIC TRIBUNE—NOVEMBER 2, 1983—Page 6

‘The confidential list of corporate sponsors of the Fraser Institute. It runs for seven

The Fraser Institute: joie
selling right wing policy
for the corporate elite

uae one is dependent on those who pay the
bi Red

According to the study, the Institute’s
1982 budget was in excess of $800,000 and
_that money came from scores of corporate
members including the country’s top cor-
porations ranked by assets. There is “‘an in-
credible concentration of large corporations
either contributing to, or associated with, the
Fraser Institute,’ the study notes. ‘‘All of
the country’s top eight financial institutions
and top eight insurance companies are in-

‘ cluded through membership or affiliation to

an Institute trustee. In the same way four of
the nation’s top five corporations are
represented, as are 16 of the top 25 and 65 of
the top 100.”

“Tt is an obvious and unassailable fact
that those who support and associate with
the Fraser Institute are the very large power-
ful corporations who overwhelmingly
dominate the economy of this country. They
also appear to be dominating the politics of
British Columbia through their use of the
Fraser Institute as a propaganda and lobby
instrument.”’

The authors also emphasize that sponsors
of the Institute also include U-S. subsidiaries
of Canadian companies as well as several
U.S.-based transnational energy corpora-
tions.

The significance of that sponsorship, they
note, is that it “‘provides a means whereby
foreign capital, like its Canadian counter-
part, can apply indirect pressure for the
maintenance of a ‘favorable investment
climate’ in the province.

“The Institute’s advocacy of the lower
taxes, cuts in government spending, restric-
tions on union activity, and end to the
minimum wage anda halt to state regulation
of the marketplace all fall into line with
dominant corporate interests.”’

Although the study does not specifically
make the point, the Institute’s influence over
government policy and its effectiveness in
propagating right wing ideas has grown im-
mensely over the past four or five years. The
number of corporate members, listed at 63 in
1976, has grown to some 310 companies ac-
cording to the 1983 list which is included
with the study. :

. The budget has grown accordingly, from
less than $500,000 in 1977 to the current
$800,000.

“The Institute definitely is a rising star
both in terms of its profile in the public and
its overall influence in the business com-
munity,’”’ Malcomson said in an interview.

That public profile has indeed risen
dramatically. Malcolmson listed some of the
media which regularly carry Fraser Institute
views, usually those expressed by director
Michael Walker. They include a regular col-
umn in the Financial Post syndicated col-
ums which appear in such newspapers as the
North Shore News and the Nanaimo Times,
as feature commentaries in the Independent
Business Forum and other business journals.

Even more high profile are Walker’s

columns in the Vancouver Province

on Sundays and his syndicated radio com-

mentaries which are carried by such stations
as CHQM.

“You’re definitely not talking about

some fringe group when you talk about the

Fraser Institute today,’’ Malcolmson em-_

phasized. ‘‘You’re talking about the
mainstream of big business in Canada.”’
He noted that the various corporate spon-
sors may not necessarily endorse or support
everything the Institute stands for but it
serves a vitally important role for them ‘‘in
softening up public opinion and making
right wing initiatives more palatable.
“The Institute appears as an academic
economic think tank but its main energies

Chairperson A.F. Campney ~
Vice-Chairpersons ~ R.J. Addington ;
T.P. Boyle - Jo

P.N.T. Widdrington

T.J. Bell
J.T. Black
J.A. Boeckh
J.E. Cleghorn
F.S. Eaton
R.T. Eyton
A.G.A. Fisher
J.C. Gilmer
A.D. Hamilton
E.L. Harrison
E.L. Kolber
W.H. Levine
L.K. Lodge
D.K. Mclvor _
J.L. McPherson
The Hon. V. deB.
P.L. Pare :
_ D.D. Peters
A, Phillips
E.C. Phillips
P.H. Pocklington
A. Powis
J.E. Richardson
CS. Riley
W.S. Robertson
M.M., Ryan
J.A. Scrymgeour
W.W. Siebens
W.F. Spence
H.R. Stephen
R.J. Turner

Others

Secretary-Treasurer K.S. Holman

Ex-officio M.A. Walker

A.F. Campney
R.J. Addington
T.P. Boyle

J.C. Gilmer

MEMBERS OF THE
EXECUTIVE ADVISORY
BOARD

“propaganda influence. In one instance

_ ed in that year. :

At top, Institute senior economist "|

Above, the list of Institute trustees:
are directed at public opinion — at makin&
cutbacks in social services and attacks ©
labor more acceptable,’’ he said. :

The study also notes that the Institu’’ |
sponsored the establishment of two new off
shoots, the centre for the Study ©
Economics and Religion, and the Econom
Education Resource Centre, to extend a
1982, the study states, the Ministry.
Education contracted with the Educat®
Resource Centre to provide a course in ©
sumer education for high schools.

More important, however are
parallels between Institute policy and ©
policy embodied in the 26 bills now pa
by the Socred government or still beforé
Legislature.

The authors outline several areas wher
the policies of the Institute and the gove™
ment coincide: .

© Social welfare: in making cuts to P
grams for women, children, families andt
disabled, the Social Credit government 0°
echoed the position of senior Insti
economist Walter Block that such sé
are really the responsibility of the chure™
private agencies and the family. __

e Education: In reducing teaching ,
levels to that of 1976 — and cutting 3»
positions — the government is follow
Walker’s advice to pick a target year ve
reduce staff and funding to the level proOY"

© Government size and spending: ~
Socreds plans for 25 per cent reduction,
government staff by Septem
following the Fraser Institute’s call for cus