The reason was stated at the posting: for comparison. There are substantial similarities of intent, goals, and ideals as stated within the Joint Statement, the SPP, and the CFR. These goals, associations, and common themes cannot be dismissed as merely coincidental.
I've already posted earlier that several CFR recommendations have already been implemented.
But transparency is lacking as to specifics, as far as I'm concerned. I am always suspicious when transparency is lacking.
Why not? Both efforts were seeking solutions to the same problem. If you went to several different doctors seeking opinions about a medical condition, would you be concerned if they all agreed with each other. It really doesn't take a Harvard PhD to come up with a list of viable solutions to the problems we are encountering with both trade and security in North America. And none of the initiatives listed in either source are very specific (as you've pointed out). Yet both sources represent the efforts of representatives from all three of the countries involved. It isn't that surprising that there is a broad degree of consensus between the two.