Advertisement

Advocacy Coalitions, the Media, and Hydraulic Fracturing in the Canadian Provinces of British Columbia and Quebec

  • Éric Montpetit
  • Erick Lachapelle
  • Alexandre Harvey
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter compares the politics of hydraulic fracturing in Quebec and British Columbia (BC), two provinces that best exemplify the east–west Canadian divide over shale gas development. While both provinces began authorizing hydraulically fractured wells between 2005 and 2007, BC has consistently supported the shale gas industry ever since, while Quebec abruptly adopted a moratorium in 2011. This chapter traces BC’s policy continuity to the stable coalition politics that endured throughout the period, while Quebec’s policy shift occurred in a period of coalition instability, during which government distanced itself from industry. This sudden change in coalition politics in Quebec coincides with a burst of negative media attention to shale gas development, which illustrates the role that the media can play in policy subsystems.

Keywords

Hydraulic Fracture British Columbia Provincial Government Energy Information Administration Advocacy Coalition 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the financial support of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and they thank Ariane Marchand-Labelle, Marc Temblay-Faulkner, and Camille Dagenais for helpful research assistance.

References

  1. Baumgartner, F.R., S.L. De Boef, and A.E. Boydstun. 2008. The Decline of Death Penalty and the Discovery of Innocence. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bennett, W.L. 1996. An Introduction to Journalism Norms and Representations of Politics. Political Communication 13(4): 373–384. doi: 10.1080/10584609.1996.9963126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bherer, L., P. Dufour, and C. Rothmayr. 2013. Analyse comparée des mobilisations autour du développement du gaz de schiste au Québec, en France, aux États-Unis et en Colombie-Britannique. Québec: Étude Réalisée dans Le Cadre de l'Évaluation Environnementale Stratégique Sur le Gaz de Schiste.Google Scholar
  4. Boykoff, M.T., and J.M. Boykoff. 2004. Balance as Bias: Global Warming and the US Prestige Press. Global Environmental Change 14(2): 125–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bureau d’audiences publiques sur l’environnement. 2011. Développement durable de l’industrie des gaz de schiste au Québec rapport d’enquête et d’audience publique. Québec, Québec: Bureau des audience publiques en environnement. http://site.ebrary.com/id/10456519.Google Scholar
  6. Comité de l’évaluation environnementale stratégique. 2014. Évaluation environnementale stratégique sur le gaz de schiste. Québec.Google Scholar
  7. Commissaire au développement durable. 2011. Rapport du Vérificateur général du Québec à l’Assemblée nationale pour l’année 2010–2011. Québec.Google Scholar
  8. Cook, T.E. 2005. Governing with the News: The News Media as a Political Institution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Côté, C. 2010. Le gaz de schiste sème l’inquiétude. La Presse, June.Google Scholar
  10. Culpepper, P.D. 2011. Quiet Politics and Business Power: Corporate Control in Europe and Japan. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Dimitrova, D.V., and J. Strömbäck. 2009. Look Who’s Talking: Use of Sources in Newspaper Coverage in Sweden and the United States. Journalism Practice 3(1): 75–91. doi: 10.1080/17512780802560773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. EIA. 2014. Overview: Canada. Ottawa: U.S. Energy Information Administration. http://www.eia.gov/countries/analysisbriefs/Canada/canada.pdf.
  13. Expert Panel on Harnessing Science and Technology to Understand the Environmental Impacts of Shale Gas Extraction. 2014. Environmental Impacts of Shale Gas Extraction in Canada. Ottawa: Council of Canadian Academies.Google Scholar
  14. Feldman, L., E.W. Maibach, C. Roser-Renouf, and A. Leiserowitz. 2012. Climate on Cable: The Nature and Impact of Global Warming Coverage on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC. The International Journal of Press/Politics 17(1): 3–31. doi: 10.1177/1940161211425410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Francoeur, L.-G. 2008. Sécurité énergétique: Rabaska affaiblirait le Québec. Le Devoir, February 8.Google Scholar
  16. Fraser Basin Council. 2012. Identifying Health Concerns Relating to Oil & Gas Development in Northeastern BC. British Columbia.Google Scholar
  17. Heikkila, T., C.M. Weible, J.J. Pierce, S. Gallaher, J. Kagan, and B. Blair. 2014. A Summary Report of the Politics of Shale Gas Development and High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in New York. School of Public Affairs, University of Colorado Denver. http://www.ucdenver.edu/academics/colleges/SPA/natgasdev/Documents/Summary%20Report%20of%20the%20Politics%20of%20NY%20Hydraulic%20Fracturing_April%202014.pdf.
  18. Hessing, M., M. Howlett, and T. Summerville. 2005. Canadian Natural Resource and Environmental Policy: Political Economy and Public Policy, 2nd ed. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
  19. Ingold, K. 2011. Network Structures within Policy Processes: Coalitions, Power, and Brokerage in Swiss Climate Policy: Ingold: Network Structures within Policy Processes. Policy Studies Journal 39(3): 435–459. doi: 10.1111/j.1541-0072.2011.00416.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Islam, K. 2007. Canada’s Natural Resource Wealth at a Glance. EnviroStats 1(3): 3–7.Google Scholar
  21. Jenkins-Smith, H.C., G.K. St-Clair, and B. Woods. 1991. Explaining Change in Policy Subsystems: Analysis of Coalition Stability and Defection over Time. American Journal of Political Science 25: 851–880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jenkins-Smith, H.C., D. Nohrstedt, C.M. Weible, and P.A. Sabatier. 2014. The Advocacy Coalition Framework: Foundations, Evolution, and Ongoing Research. In Theories of the Policy Process, 3rd ed, 183–223. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  23. Jones, B.D., and F.R. Baumgartner. 2005. The Politics of Attention: How Government Prioritizes Problems. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  24. Lachapelle, E., and E. Montpetit. 2014. Public Opinion on Hydraulic Fracturing in the Province of Quebec: A Comparison with Michigan and Pennsylvania. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Local, State and Urban Policy, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  25. Leach, W.D., and P.A. Sabatier. 2005. To Trust an Adversary: Integrating Rational and Psychological Models in Collaborative Policymaking. American Political Science Review 99: 491–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lodge, M., and K. Matus. 2014. Science, Badgers, Politics: Advocacy Coalitions and Policy Change in Bovine Tuberculosis Policy in Britain. Policy Studies Journal 42(3): 367–390. doi: 10.1111/psj.12065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Montpetit, É. 2011. Scientific Credibility, Disagreement, and Error Costs in 17 Biotechnology Subsystems. Policy Studies Journal 39(3): 513–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Montpetit, É. 2012. Does Holding Beliefs with Conviction Prevent Policy Actors from Adopting a Compromising Attitude? Political Studies 60(3): 621–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nohrstedt, D., and C.M. Weible. 2010. The Logic of Policy Change after Crisis: Proximity and Subsystem Interaction. Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy 1(2): 1–32. doi: 10.2202/1944-4079.1035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rivard, C., D. Lavoie, R. Lefebvre, S. Séjourné, C. Lamontagne, and M. Duchesne. 2014. An Overview of Canadian Shale Gas Production and Environmental Concerns. International Journal of Coal Geology 126: 64–76. doi: 10.1016/j.coal.2013.12.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sabatier, P.A. 1993. Policy Change over a Decade or More. In Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach, 13–40. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  32. Shields, A. 2010. Des citoyens exigent un moratoire sur l’exploitation du gaz naturel au Québec. Le Devoir, June.Google Scholar
  33. Soroka, S.N. 2014. Negativity in Democratic Politics: Causes and Consequences. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Soroka, S.N., and C. Wlezien. 2005. Opinion-Policy Dynamics: Public Preferences and Public Expenditure in the United Kingdom. British Journal of Political Science 35(4): 665–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stromback, J. 2006. Do Politicians Lead the Tango?: A Study of the Relationship between Swedish Journalists and their Political Sources in the Context of Election Campaigns. European Journal of Communication 21(2): 147–164. doi: 10.1177/0267323105064043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tarrow, S.G. 2011. Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics, 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tsebelis, G. 1995. Decision making in Political Systems: Veto Players in Presidentialism, Parliamentarism, Multicameralism and Multipartyism. British Journal of Political Science 25: 289–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Turcotte, C. 2008. Portrait – Le géologue qui voit le Québec d’un oeil différent…. Le Devoir, December 15.Google Scholar
  39. Weible, C.M., S.N. Siddiki, and J.J. Pierce. 2011. Foes to Friends: Changing Contexts and Changing Intergroup Perceptions. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis 13: 499–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zaller, J.R. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Éric Montpetit
    • 1
  • Erick Lachapelle
    • 1
  • Alexandre Harvey
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of MontrealMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations