University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository

Graduate Studies Master of Public Policy Capstone Projects

2018-09-11 Public Perceptions of Pipeline Development in Canada

McLean, Jade

McLean, J. (2018). Public Perceptions of Pipeline Development in Canada (Unpublished master's project). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. http://hdl.handle.net/1880/109314 master thesis

Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca MASTER OF PUBLIC POLICY CAPSTONE PROJECT

Public Perceptions of Pipeline Development in Canada

Submitted by: Jade McLean

Approved by Supervisor: Dr. Jennifer Winter

Submitted in fulfillment of the requirements of PPOL 623 and completion of the requirements for the Master of Public Policy degree Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my capstone supervisor, Dr. Jennifer Winter, for sharing her time, guidance, and wealth of knowledge throughout the process of this capstone project. Her expertise in energy and the environment, and critical feedback, has been invaluable to the completion of this project.

[ii] Table of Contents

Capstone Executive Summary ...... iv Introduction ...... 1 Literature Review ...... 4 The Advocacy Coalition Framework ...... 4 Framing Pipelines ...... 6 Methodology ...... 9 The History of Pipeline Politics in Canada ...... 10 Data Analysis and Results ...... 14 Pipeline Framing under the Harper Government ...... 17 Policy Implications and Public Perceptions ...... 25 Pipeline Framing under the Trudeau Liberals ...... 28 Policy Implications and Public Perceptions ...... 34 Conclusion ...... 38 References ...... 40 Appendix A: Sentiment analysis of ‘pipeline(s)’ mentions (2007-2017) ...... 47 Appendix B: Mentions of major pipeline projects during the debates in the House of Commons (2007-2017) ...... 48 Appendix C: Twenty most frequent words from the NDP and Green Party election platforms (2008, 2011, and 2015) ...... 49

[iii]

Capstone Executive Summary

In the last decade, pipelines in Canada have received increasing political attention and decreasing public support. In fact, pipelines have emerged as one of the country’s most contentious political debates, with extensive political and media attention devoted to the

Northern Gateway Pipeline, Keystone XL Pipeline, the Energy East Pipeline, and the Trans

Mountain Pipeline Expansion Project, in recent years. Accordingly, this has resulted in considerable economic, social, and political consequences for all Canadians and an increasingly complex regulatory environment for pipeline developers in Canada. A number of factors can be attributed to these discrepancies in public support for pipelines, such as changing economic conditions following the 2014 fall in global oil prices. However, this study argues that the decline in public support for pipelines is largely due to the ways in which pipelines are framed to the public by dominant political actors in Canada.

This study examines the ways in which political actors in Canada use political framing as a way to sway public opinion and the choices of policymakers regarding pipelines. Analyses of various political party debate in the House of Commons, electoral platforms, and public

[iv] speeches were performed in order to analyze the use of both pro- and anti-pipeline framing by the Conservative Party, Liberal Party, New Democratic Party, and the Green Party of Canada.

Three dominant frames were identified, including economic framing (jobs and economic prosperity), environmental framing (the contribution of oil sands development to climate change and other environmental risks), and social framing (impact of pipeline development on

Indigenous peoples and local communities). Additionally, data was collected from 24 public opinion polls between 2007 and 2017 to allow for an in-depth understanding of evolving public attitudes towards pipelines in Canada. These polls assessed respondent’s views of pipeline and oil development, climate change, the environment, and attitudes towards former Prime

Minister Stephen Harper and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

The analysis reveals three key findings: first, over the last decade, discussion surrounding pipeline development among political parties in Canada has increased drastically.

In 2007, the term ‘pipeline(s)’ was mentioned 58 times during debates in the House of

Commons. In 2017, this number had jumped to 1,278 mentions. Second, pipelines were framed as a tradeoff between the economy and the environment throughout the decade. For example, the dominant approach of the Conservative Party was to discuss pipelines using economic frames. This was ultimately perceived by the public as policy lacking critical environmental considerations, such as action on climate change. On the contrary, the Liberal

Party employed both environmental frames and economic frames in their discussion of pipelines. Though this elicited a more favourable response from Canadians, it also caused them to question the Party’s ability to effectively manage the nation’s economic interests. Third, political rhetoric is significant in its ability to sway public perceptions of policy decisions in

[v]

Canada. The ability of government policy decisions to reflect the will of the public is critical for successful policy implementation. This is highlighted by the inability of the Conservative Party to garner significant political and pubic buy-in for pipeline development during their tenure

(2006-2015). This is largely due to its inability to align their policies and rhetoric in accordance with dominant public desires at the time.

As pipelines continue to be a dominant policy issue in Canada, this study aims to provide an understanding to the relationship between public opinion and policy development, and how they interact to shape public perceptions of energy development in Canada.

[vi]

Introduction

The movement of petroleum products in Canada has received enormous public and media attention throughout the past decade. Today, 70 percent of Canadians believe that pipelines are an integral component of the wellbeing of the economy, and a majority also report confidence in the safety, oversight, and operations of pipeline developers (Anderson &

Coletto, 2017).1 However, public and political support regarding pipeline development in

Canada has gone through significant shifts. As of 2017, only 44 percent of Canadians report positive support for the expansion of pipelines, a 14-percentage point drop from 2014 estimates (Anderson & Coletto, 2017).

The findings of this study show that declining public support for pipelines has been in part driven by political framing techniques employed by political actors across various media channels within Canada, such as electoral platforms and public speeches. Pipelines are often framed to be of environmental concerns, such as increasing global contributions to greenhouse gas emissions; public safety concerns, such as oil spills; and human rights concerns, such as impacts to Indigenous peoples (Lawlor & Gravelle, 2018). Following the 2015 Paris Accord, increased public concern over climate change also motivated many political actors to campaign against increased fossil fuel development and for an increased use of renewable energy technologies.

1 Survey respondents were asked if they ‘strongly agree,’ ‘agree,’ ‘disagree,’ ‘strongly disagree,’ or ‘unsure,’ to the following statements: ‘pipelines play an essential role in delivering the energy we used every day,’ ‘pipelines play an essential role in the economy of Canada,’ ‘pipelines deliver a huge amount of energy across Canada with few incidents,’ ‘Canadian pipeline companies put a lot of effort into ensuring safe operation,’ and ‘pipelines are subject to rigorous oversight by governments in Canada.’

1 | P a g e

Political controversy regarding the future of pipeline development in Canada has considerable economic, social, and political implications. From an economic standpoint, continuing pipeline intransigence has imposed a number of costly limitations to the country’s energy sector, including an overreliance on the U.S. market for oil exports, as well as the industry’s use of riskier and less efficient modes of oil transportation, such as rail and truck.2

Together, these two factors have resulted in a deepening discount for Western Canadian Select crude oil prices in comparison to other global oil benchmarks. The Chief Economist of

Scotiabank, Jean-Francois Perrault, estimates that such discounts are costing the Canadian economy up to $15.6 billion annually, or equivalently, 0.75 percent of gross domestic product

(McNeely & Orland, 2018).

Consequently, Alberta, home to the world’s third largest oil reserves and as the sixth largest global oil producer, has become one of the weakest jurisdictions for oil and gas investor confidence (McNeely & Orland, 2018). Relatedly, in 2017, Canadians were asked in a poll whether Canada was doing a ‘very good,’ ‘good,’ ‘average,’ ‘bad,’ or ‘very bad,’ job at building public confidence in the energy sector, providing a clear vision for the future, and developing a predictable and competitive regulatory environment for investors. The majority of Canadians responded ‘bad’ or ‘very bad’ on all three accounts (60%, 51%, and 47%, respectively) (Nanos,

2017). Over two thirds of Canadians also believe that the best way forward for the nation’s economy is to prioritize other avenues of economic growth, rather than promoting the use of

Canada’s oil and gas (Anderson & Coletto, 2017).

2 Research shows that pipelines surpass other means of oil transportation, such as rail and truck, in virtually all aspects of comparison, including safety, reliability, and economic feasibility (Green & Jackson, 2015; Verma et al., 2017).

2 | P a g e

The growing resistance to pipeline development in Canada has resulted in increasing challenges for project proponents faced with overcoming complex regulatory and political hurdles, and declining investor confidence in Canada’s energy sector. This political and regulatory uncertainty negatively affects Canada’s ability to remain viable and competitive in the global oil marketplace. In the next 12 years, Canadian oil production is expected to exceed the current capacity of Canada’s pipelines. By 2030, additional production of 1.4 million barrels per day is forecast (Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, 2017) — highlighting the need for Canada to ensure progress on pipeline development. This research aims to answer two questions: first, how have public perceptions regarding pipeline development in Canada changed over the past decade? Second, to what extent has political rhetoric, the public views and statements of political leaders, shaped the way pipelines are perceived in Canada, and what has driven this discourse?

In recent years, research has tracked public opinion of oil and gas development across

Canada (Anderson & Coletto, 2017; Bozinoff, 2016), but little research has delved into how politicians and powerful public figures shaped public perception of Canada’s pipeline sector.

There is a clear lack of literature on how established beliefs and values held by political actors interact with the nature and magnitude of information that is made available to the public regarding pipelines and ways in which such information is framed to the public. Through analysis of political framing tactics employed by the previous Conservative government and current Liberal government, this research aims to identify and analyze the ways in which

Canadian political discourse has fostered public perceptions of pipeline development in the past decade. This study finds that the Harper government’s predominant use of economic

3 | P a g e framing in regard to pipelines resulted in lower public acceptance rates of pipeline development. In contrary, the tendency of the Trudeau government to frame pipelines using both economic and environmental frames resulted in higher public approval rates of pipelines.

The following section of this paper provides a review of political framing literature and describes how the Advocacy Coalition Framework explains why political actors frame pipelines in certain ways and how this influences public perceptions. This is followed by a methodology section, which explains the analytical approach and discusses limitations of the data. This is followed by a description of the history of pipeline politics in Canada to provide further context as to why pipelines have emerged as an important political topic in Canada. Finally, the data results and findings of political framing techniques among Canada’s major political parties are presented, as well as a discussion on the impacts on public policy outcomes under both the

Harper and Trudeau governments.

Literature Review

The Advocacy Coalition Framework

The increase in public policy debate regarding pipelines in recent years and the evolution of Canada’s energy policy requires a closer look at the ways in which individuals and political coalitions make decisions throughout the policy process, and what motivates them to make changes to their policy platforms. This paper applies insights from the Advocacy Coalition

Framework (ACF) in analyzing the impact of political rhetoric and policy formation on public perceptions facing pipeline development in Canada.

4 | P a g e

The ACF is an appropriate framework to analyze pipeline framing because it attempts to understand the relationship between belief systems and policy change as they apply to issues that receive a high level of disagreement from different levels of government, the public, and other interest groups. Given the limitations of policy analysis in the late-1980’s, political scientists Paul Sabatier and Hank-Jenkins Smith recognized the need for analysis that

“challenged the classical assumption that institutional ties determine an actor’s position”

(Ebrary, n.d.). Centrally, the ACF argues that a political actor’s individually held belief systems play a dominant influence on their policymaking decisions (Ripberger, Gupta, Silva, & Jenkins-

Smith, 2014). These common belief systems shared among members of a political coalition are the central feature of the ACF, as they underpin the core policy beliefs that influence the substance, stability, and policy decisions of advocacy coalitions. Advocacy coalitions are composed of “people from a variety of positions who share a particular belief system… and who show a non-trivial degree of coordinated activity over time” (Sabatier, 1988). They can be composed not only of policy actors, parties, lobbyists, and other political agencies, but also scientific experts and journalists. Similarly, they act as a filter through which political actors observe the world (Ripberger et al., 2014). As coalitions seek to broaden their understanding of policy issues, they tend to elaborate and reinforce analyses that align with their pre-existing belief systems and deny those which refute it (Sabatier, 1988). According to Sabatier, the policy process is an ongoing competition between different advocacy coalitions, who promote their beliefs about policy issues and solutions.

Federal and provincial policy decisions regarding pipelines represent an example of a policy output that has changed considerably throughout the past 10 years. The decision-

5 | P a g e making process of Canadian policy actors, politicians, experts, and interest groups highlight the value of the ACF, as it includes actors of different decision levels representing diverse (public and private) organizations. This analysis has important implications for how political actors frame the issue of pipelines. Pre-disposed beliefs and values held by political actors can likely have a large degree of influence over how certain actors perceive energy policy decisions and for their willingness to support certain projects. For instance, politicians who value the environment above exclusively economic pursuits are often less willing to support future pipeline development due to fears of local toxicity risks, such as oil spills.

Framing Pipelines

Competing frames have played a substantial role in the public perceptions shaping pipeline development in Canada. Framing involves “selectively emphasizing and simplifying particular aspects or interpretations of an issue in order to influence [ones] understanding of complex and unfamiliar phenomena in light of their own predispositions and experiences”

(Dusyk, Axen, & Dullemond, 2018). Pipelines are framed by political actors and activist groups differently depending on the context and speaker and generally fall into one of two categories: pro-pipeline or anti-pipeline framing. Since political ideologies are characterized by systems of frames activated by ideological language (Lakoff, 2010), politicians and special interest groups use persuasive language when communicating policy to the public to influence their belief systems and alter their perceived realities. As such, on a mass scale, ideological language associated to certain frames quickly become the accepted ‘norm’ (Lakoff, 2010).

6 | P a g e

Existing literature identifies three dominant frames used by politicians and the media when discussing pipeline policy: jobs and economic prosperity [economic frame], climate change and the impact of greenhouse gases on the environment [environmental frame], and the impact on Indigenous peoples [social frame] (Ilnyckyj, 2017; Dusyk, Axen, & Dullemond,

2018).

Economic framing often includes the contribution of fossil fuel production, transportation, and development to jobs, economic growth, energy security, and the sustainability of modern lifestyles. This frame is frequently emphasized by oil companies and other pipeline advocates in efforts to highlight the benefits of fossil fuel development and is largely congruent with pro-pipeline framing. Secondly, and alternatively, environmental frames draw attention to the local impacts of climate change and the continued expansion of oil sands production. Users of the environmental frame emphasize the adverse impacts of large-scale bitumen extraction processes and oil spill risks on air, water, land, and local wildlife, as well as the broad-sweeping effects of climate change on rising ocean levels, mass human migrations, and increasing global temperatures. Often, environmental frames are used with complimentary social frames that stress the impact of pipeline development on Indigenous peoples, underscoring the negative impacts of pipeline development on Indigenous people’s traditional lands, lifestyles, and moral and legal rights. Thirdly, users of other competing social frames seek to promote the economic, social, and environmental benefits awarded to Indigenous communities by pipeline project proponents, usually in the form of impact benefit agreements and equity buy-in agreements. They also stress the importance of the oil sands to the economic

7 | P a g e prosperity of many Indigenous communities in terms of employment and the inclusion of

Indigenous businesses in large-scale operations.

The way in which political actors frame policy issues has important implications for the way in which information is received by, and interpreted, by the public. As Downs (1957) noted, rational citizens have little incentive to invest their limited time to learn about the entire range of complex issues they face, so they rely on information provided by those with a legitimate claim to expertise in a given issue area. These individuals tend to be politicians, political elites, policy specialists, activists, journalists, and varying types of experts, that devote themselves to a subject. Because citizens often rely on these external sources of information to form an understanding of the world around us, these individuals exercise a large degree of influence over the way in which the public perceives policy issues.

However, the information that ultimately reaches the public sphere is never the full picture. Rather, it is “a highly selective and stereotypical view” of reality (Zaller, 1992). As a result, information about complex policy information is captured by the public through short, digestible, and persuasive statements made by political actors through media channels. These persuasive statements act as mental shortcuts, or heuristics, for individuals to assess them in forming their opinions on policy issues (Lachapelle, Montpetit & Gauvin, 2014). These heuristic cues often expand into larger, ideology-based concerns because people tend to align their perceptions with those of trusted political elites. Therefore, the more familiar people become with elite positions, the more likely their own perceptions will reflect these heuristics.

8 | P a g e

In addition to information provided by policy experts, political framing is itself motivated by an individual’s own biases, experiences, knowledge, and beliefs. According to John Zaller,

“every opinion is a marriage of information and predisposition: information to form a mental picture of the given issue, and predisposition to motivate some conclusion about it” (Zaller,

1992). Thus, individuals are inclined to trust the opinion of those policy experts that already align with some aspects of their own pre-existing beliefs. Ultimately, by way of strategic framing, political actors have a powerful ability to control and limit the information, or supply of heuristics, available to their audiences in efforts to shape public opinion surrounding policy issues.

Methodology

Data was collected for the period 2007 to 2017 from transcripts from the House of

Commons debates, via the Parliament of Canada Hansard index, political party electoral platforms in 2008, 2011 and 2015, and a variety of public political speeches. Using Nvivo software, a word frequency query using the keyword ‘pipeline(s),’ ‘climate change,’

‘greenhouse gas(es),’ and ‘oil’ was performed across all collected Hansard transcripts to derive the number of times the terms were mentioned during the debates. Word frequency queries are often performed to derive political priorities and key themes within political party media.

From there, each occurrence of the keywords was examined for its context and placed into one of three categories: Economic Framing, Environmental Framing, and Social Framing. This categorization helped determine which frame was most commonly used by political actors. The word search query was then extended to the Conservative Party, Liberal Party, New Democratic

9 | P a g e

Party (NDP), and Green Party’s electoral platforms of 2008, 2011, and 2015, to calculate how frequently each term was mentioned, and to gain a better understanding of each party’s positioning on pipelines.

To supplement the analysis of political framing, data was collected from 24 public opinion polls which occurred between 2007 and 2017 from the Angus Reid Institute, Abacus

Data, Ipsos, EKOS, and Nanos. Public opinion polls were located from a variety of online sources using the keywords ‘pipeline,’ ‘climate change,’ ‘Stephen Harper,’ and ‘climate change,’ and is not a comprehensive universe of Canadian public opinion polling. Public opinion polls

(when a representative sample is surveyed) are often regarded as effective tools to study general attitudes towards government decision making and the strength of public opinion and concerns regarding particular issues over time (Abacus Data, 2015). A limitation is that public opinion polls may be subject to selection bias, where survey respondents are able to individually decide whether they will participate in a poll or not. The results may not always represent the larger population as those who feel most strongly about a person or issue will be the most likely to participate. However, public opinion polls are often regarded as being more effective in comparison to alternatives, such as telephone polls, which commonly have large refusal rates and fail on the criteria of random sampling (Abacus Data, 2015).

The History of Pipeline Politics in Canada

The debate surrounding pipeline development in Canada has seen dramatic uptake in recent years. However, pipeline politics are nothing new — pipelines have been a polarizing issue among political parties in Canada for decades. Gaining a comprehensive understanding of

10 | P a g e the current issues and public attitudes surrounding pipelines requires a brief examination of the history of pipeline politics in Canada, and how they have emerged as one of the country’s most contentious debates.

Pipelines first rose to national importance in 1956 when TransCanada proposed

Canada’s first long-distance natural gas pipeline from Alberta to Quebec. Referred to as the

‘great pipeline debate,’ this was the first major dispute among Canada’s political parties about pipelines. In short, the dispute arose after the pipeline was placed in peril when TransCanada experienced financial troubles. Recognizing the importance of the project and its potential for economic development, the Liberal government provided a bailout to the company’s U.S. consortium (Kheraj, 2018). At the time, TransCanada was a privately-held American corporation, which sparked fears among Canadian politicians over a tighter-U.S. hold on

Canada’s pipeline interests. The Conservative Party was particularly opposed to this decision, prioritizing an ‘all-Canadian’ pipeline (Kheraj, 2018). Though the decision resulted in bitter debate in the Parliament of Canada for months, the pipeline was approved later that year. This project sparked the rapid expansion of Canada’s pipeline network in the years following.

However, it also forced many Canadians and political actors to question the impacts of pipeline development on their way of life.

For instance, in the 1960s and 70s, anxieties over the local impacts of oil development began to rise. A number of oil spills along the Interprovincial pipeline in Western Canada during the 1970s resulted in repeated calls for enhanced environmental regulation of the industry and further research into the effects of oil on soil and water quality (Kheraj, 2018). Furthermore, in

11 | P a g e the North, apprehensions began to stir among Indigenous peoples and environmental groups over the impacts of pipeline development on local communities, wildlife, and sensitive ecological areas as pipeline expansion plans continued (Kheraj, 2018).

Over the next 40 years, unease over the risks of pipeline construction and operation would evolve from local concerns, primarily led by Indigenous groups and farmers along the pipeline route, to global concerns about climate change and national environmental policy.

This is supported by examination of recent pipeline project debates, such as the Keystone XL pipeline. In particular, the Keystone XL pipeline illustrates the extent to which project proponents are faced with increasingly complex political and regulatory hurdles today.

Proposed by TransCanada in 2008, the controversial Keystone XL pipeline would transport crude oil from the Alberta oil sands to refineries in Nebraska, with a carrying capacity of

830,000 barrels per day (Adams-Heard & Orland, 2018). The project was subject to nearly a decade of political debate, including both the rejection and approval by two U.S. presidents, hundreds of protests by environmental advocates and Indigenous peoples, intervenors in court hearings, and several environmental assessments. TransCanada also proposed alternative pipeline routes in efforts to meet both Canadian and U.S. environmental standards. This is a far cry from the pipeline processes in the 1950’s, where virtually zero public consultations were held for the TransCanada project and opposition was rarely expressed (Thomson, 2018).

Pipeline projects in Canada have also received varying support from major political parties. For instance, the Conservative Party has traditionally strongly advocated on behalf of pipeline development, a claim that is supported through examination of the Party’s recent

12 | P a g e election platforms. For example, in 2008, a key objective of the Party’s platform was to encourage pipeline development in Canada’s North by reducing regulatory barriers

(Conservative Party of Canada, 2008). In 2015, the Party promoted Canada’s energy industry as a “significant source of opportunity and prosperity” (Conservative Party of Canada, 2015).

Conversely, the NDP and Green Party have generally opposed future pipeline development. Though recent NDP election platforms recognize the medium-term importance of oil to the economy, it advocates for a gradual transition to renewable energy sources (New

Democratic Party, 2011). The NDP also oppose Canadian oil exports outside of the country, instead favouring increased Canadian refining capacity in order to “maximize the economic benefits and jobs for Canadians” (New Democratic Party, 2011). On the other hand, a key initiative of the Green Party has been to halt all development of the oil sands (Green Party of

Canada, 2015). Exemplifying a more extreme political stance to energy development, the

Greens emphasize that the environmental consequences of oil sands development far outweigh the economic benefits from development. Alternatively, the Party advocates on behalf of a full transition to renewable energy.

In the middle of the pipeline debate spectrum lies the Liberal Party, which has generally emphasized the importance of harmonizing the development of Canada’s resources with the environment. In this sense, the Liberals employ a neutral stance regarding energy development.

During the 2015 election campaign, for instance, the Liberal platform promotes the economic benefits of resource-based energy projects, such as job creation, in congruence with stringent action on climate change (Liberal Party of Canada, 2015).

13 | P a g e

With the emergence of increasing Constitutional rights, such as those of Indigenous peoples, and the politics of climate change, the scale and scope of environmental concerns facing pipeline development has risen drastically. Hence, pipelines have become a major policy issue among Canada’s political parties as the modern-day pipeline debate becomes increasingly complex.

Data Analysis and Results

In 2007, the term ‘pipeline(s)’ was mentioned a total of 58 times by political parties during the debates in the House of Commons; in 2017, this word count jumped to 1,278 instances. The highest frequency of mentions occurred in 2015. Figure 1 depicts the mentions of the keywords between 2007 and 2017. A sentiment analysis performed on the term

‘pipeline(s)’ also shows that nearly half of pipeline mentions (48 percent) were negative.

Contrarily, only 36 percent of mentions were positive, and 15 percent were neutral. Pipeline mentions were dominantly negative in 2010 and 2014. The majority of these negative mentions were founded on the NDP, Liberal Party, and Green Party opposition to the Northern

Gateway pipeline and the Harper government’s approval of the project in 2014. However, pipeline mentions were largely positive in 2013 following the Energy East pipeline proposal and promotion by the Conservative Party. Positive mentions were also dominant in 2017 after the

Liberals approved the Trans Mountain expansion project. The results of the sentiment analysis can be found in Appendix A.

A limitation of these results is that they do not depict a complete representation of the mentions as they do not account for project-specific only mentions, such as “Keystone XL,” or

14 | P a g e

“Energy East.” However, references to project-specific pipelines were found to be referenced as a pipeline the majority of the time.

The other key words examined, including ‘climate change,’ ‘oil,’ and ‘greenhouse gases,’ received relatively consistent mentioning throughout the decade, except for a noticeable uptake in the mentions of the word ‘climate change’ in 2016. Due to time constraints and the fact that these mentions applied to a broad range of topics outside the scope of this study, a sentiment analysis was not performed.

Of the major pipeline projects proposed in Canada since 2007 — Keystone XL, Northern

Gateway, Energy East and the Trans Mountain Expansion — the Energy East pipeline received the greatest amount of mentions (742 times) in House of Commons debates during this period.

This was followed by the Northern Gateway pipeline (641 mentions), Keystone XL (400 mentions), and lastly, the Trans Mountain project (308 mentions). The results from the word frequency query for each project can be found in Appendix B.

Figure 1: Mentions of ‘pipeline(s),’ ‘Climate Change,’ ‘Oil’, and ‘Greenhouse gas(es)’ during debates in House of Commons (2007-2017).

2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800

Word Count Word 600 400 200 0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Pipeline Climate change Oil GHGs

15 | P a g e

Figure 2: Sentiment analysis of ‘pipeline(s)’

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

POSITIVE NEGATIVE NEUTRAL

These results are consistent with the fact that pipelines have received increasing political and international attention in recent years. Thus, the ways in which pipelines are framed by political actors has important implications for how pipelines are perceived by the public. As mentioned earlier, politicians in Canada typically frame pipelines according to various economic, environmental, or social frames, in accordance with the party’s own beliefs, visions, and individually held predispositions.

Under Stephen Harper’s Conservative government (2006-2015) and Justin Trudeau’s

Liberal government (2015 – present), pipelines have undergone significant shifts in the ways in which it is framed by both the governing party and opposition parties, as well as how they have been perceived by the public. The remainder of this section will analyze the framing techniques emphasized by political actors during each government’s tenure.

16 | P a g e

Pipeline Framing under the Harper Government

“Jobs and growth will remain our Government’s top priority” (Harper, 2011).

The key substantive frame employed by the Conservative Party as it relates to pipeline development was the promotion of jobs, employment, investment, and economic prosperity.

Throughout the documents analyzed, this frame primarily aimed to emphasize the number of jobs created by specific pipeline or oil sands development projects, as well as to highlight the industry’s fiscal contributions to the country’s gross domestic product, foreign investment portfolios, federal tax revenues, and other industries. This sentiment was evident during debates surrounding the Mackenzie Valley pipeline in the House of Commons, where apprehensions among the NDP and Green Parties rose due to the potential impacts of the pipeline on Northern Indigenous people’s way of life, including environmental risks such as oil spills. The Conservative government insisted the pipeline was the key to providing northern communities with economic benefits such as jobs and investment opportunities (Canada, 12

July 2007).

However, it wasn’t until 2010 that the Harper government increased its efforts to advocate for the economic benefits of pipeline development, when the Keystone XL pipeline received federal approval. The pipeline proposal was opposed by environmental advocates and

First Nations communities, due to adverse environmental impacts and risks. However, the

Harper government insisted that the controversial pipeline would be a “substantial economic benefit to Canada” (Canada, 8 June 2011), contributing to an increase in 140,000 jobs in the oil sands sector and $600 billion in economic activity (Canada, 27 September 2011). Moreover,

17 | P a g e the Conservative Party often grasped the opportunity to remind the opposition that, “It is the energy industry that is paying Canada’s bills” (Canada, 25 February 2014) and contributing to nearly 20 percent of Canadian jobs (Canada, 7 November 2013).

Framing pipeline development as a means of economic growth opportunities strongly aligns with the Conservative Party’s founding political principles in support of economic prosperity, including establishing a favourable corporate tax environment (to encourage investment); encouraging greater competition (to encourage job and wealth creation); and reducing government interference in the marketplace (to lessen regulatory burdens for greater development) (Conservative Party of Canada, 2013). Jobs and employment have been a long- standing and dominant policy priority of the Conservative Party, a fact that is evident from analysis of the Party’s recent federal election platforms. A combined word frequency query performed on the 2008, 2011, and 2015 Conservative Party election platforms (Table 1) shows that ‘jobs’ is the most frequently cited word used by the Party (171 mentions). This is closely followed by the words ‘development,’ ‘businesses,’ and ‘economic.’ The results show that the fundamental priorities of the Harper government were strongly correlated with jobs, investment, trade, and other economic activity. This pattern remained relatively consistent through each of the election platforms.

18 | P a g e

Table 1: Twenty most frequent words from the Conservative Party election platforms (2008, 2011, and 2015).

Word Count Word Count 1. Jobs 171 11. Trade 74 2. Development 119 12. Security 70 3. Children 116 13. Victims 69 4. Businesses 103 14. Industry 67 5. Economic 103 15. Foreign 61 6. Taxes 87 16. Investment 58 7. Seniors 84 17. Workers 57 8. Infrastructure 81 18. Build 56 9. Research 81 19. Stronger 56 10. Budget 74 20. Protecting 55

Pipeline opponents, such as opposition parties and environmental groups, generally responded by arguing that that the number of jobs created by pipeline projects was exaggerated, or that more existing jobs are threatened by pipeline development than those that are created, such as jobs in fishing and tourism. For example, a frequent argument made by the NDP, particularly in response to the Northern Gateway Pipeline, was that 200 permanent jobs created by the pipeline were outweighed by the 13,000 jobs in British Columbia’s fishing industry and 10,000 in its tourism industry (Canada, 2 December 2010). Contrarily, the NDP purported that increasing Canada’s pipeline infrastructure would not only hinder Canadian employment opportunities, but also deter investment opportunities and reduce the country’s energy security. This position rested on the argument that transporting raw bitumen to the

U.S. to be upgraded and refined, rather than upgrading the product within Canada, would significantly export thousands of jobs. In response to Canada’s approval of the Keystone XL pipeline, for instance, the NDP claimed that the pipeline represented 18,000 lost jobs to

19 | P a g e

Canadians (Canada, 16 March 2010).

A second key frame employed by the Harper government was to emphasize the importance of pipelines as an issue of national security. The claimed national security issue was the interference of foreign actors into the decision-making processes and policy decisions regarding Canada’s economic interests, namely oil sands development. Protecting Canada’s national and economic interests from foreign interference, primarily oil sands development decisions, is another key theme of the Conservative platform. This is evident in Table 1, which shows the Conservative platforms emphasis of words ‘security’ (70 times), ‘victims’ (69 times),

‘stronger’ (56 times), and ‘protecting’ (55 times). The importance of pipeline development as a national security concern was epitomized in an open letter by then-Minister of Natural

Resources, Joe Oliver, in 2012, where he famously accused “environmental and other radical groups” of threatening to “hijack our regulatory system to achieve their ideological agenda…no matter what the cost to Canadian families in lost jobs and economic growth” (Oliver, 2012).

The Harper government sought to undermine efforts by environmental advocacy groups to oppose pipeline development by framing these groups as being motivated by foreign, as opposed to local, interests.

Framing pipelines as an issue of national security is also evident within the Harper government’s push to get pipelines built to Canada’s coastlines, referred to as the ‘oilsands access to tidewater’ movement. Since 99 percent of Canada’s oil product exports are currently exported to the U.S., the Harper government stressed the importance of accessing overseas markets in order to lessen the industry’s dependence on American markets (Natural Resources

Canada, 2018). In the 2013 Speech from the Throne address, Stephen Harper warns that “the

20 | P a g e window for gaining access to new markets will not remain open indefinitely. Now more than ever, our future prosperity depends on the responsible development of [the oil sands] … our

Government has taken action to ensure that Canada’s resources do not fall under foreign government control” (Harper, 2013).

The Harper government’s ambitious pursuit of oil sands and pipeline development was frequently resisted by the Liberal, NDP, and Green parties. Essentially, critics contended that the federal government was sacrificing environmental protection for the solitary pursuit of economic growth. For instance, the NDP argued that the Harper government’s decision to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol in 2011 was evidence that it had abandoned its intentions to take meaningful action on climate change. As stated by NDP MP Megan Leslie in the 2012

House of Commons Debate, “From withdrawing from Kyoto… and refusing to regulate emissions in the oil sands, it is clear that the government has no track record on environment”

(Canada, 2 February 2012). In addition, the NDP, Liberal Party, and Green Party frequently maintained that the Conservative government denied the existence of climate change, which become a prominent argument against Harper during the House of Commons debates from

2007 to 2015. In 2013, for instance, the NDP criticized the Conservative government for

“dismissing concerns about climate change, dismissing representations being made by environmentalists and others, and dismissing science in general” (Canada, 31 October 2013).

Portraying Prime Minister Stephen Harper as a climate change denier was also a theme within the Liberal Party’s 2015 election platform, where they stated that “responsible governments do not walk away from challenges or pretend they do not exist,” alluding to the government’s action on climate change (Liberal Party of Canada, 2015).

21 | P a g e

This perception of Harper emerged after the public release of a 2002 letter written by

Harper to the former Canadian Alliance Party. In the letter, he condemns the Kyoto Protocol as

“a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations” which would “ripple the oil and gas industries, which are essential to Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia” (CBC News, 2007). The Liberal Party denounced the decision to withdraw from the Protocol, stating that the Harper government “appears to have no understanding of what is at stake for Canada or the world. Judging by its actions, it appears it has no appreciation that climate change is real, that it is happening now…” (Canada, 7 February 2012).

Regardless of the personally held beliefs of the Conservative members, analysis of the

Party’s recent election platforms and speeches do not suggest a strong emphasis on climate change by the Harper government. For instance, during the 2009, 2011, and 2013 Speech from the Throne addresses, there was not a single mention of the term ‘climate’ or ‘climate change’ by the government. Table 2 depicts the results of a word frequency query for the major federal political party platforms regarding the terms ‘climate change,’ ‘environment(al)’, and

“greenhouse gas(es).’

22 | P a g e

Table 2: Word frequency results for ‘climate change,’ ‘environment(al)’, and ‘greenhouse gas(es)’ by major parties in the federal election platforms (2008, 2011, 2015)

‘Climate change’ ‘Environment(al)’ ‘Greenhouse gas(es)’ Total 2008 Green 72 54 24 150 Liberal 67 23 23 113 NDP 14 24 6 44 Conservative 0 18 5 23 2011 Green3 2 3 0 5 Liberal 22 26 8 56 NDP 9 6 3 18 Conservative 6 4 4 14 2015 Green 32 8 1 41 Liberal 13 14 2 29 NDP 19 12 7 38 Conservative 8 9 3 20

In the 2008, 2011, and 2015 election platforms, the term ‘climate change’ received a total of 264 mentions. References by the Conservative Party accounted for only 13 percent of these mentions — compared to 40 percent by the Green Party, 39 percent by the Liberal Party, and 16 percent by the NDP. In 2008, ‘climate change’ received zero mentions by the

Conservative Party. Overall, these results support claims that climate change and environmental matters received noticeably less attention by the Harper government than other parties.

Second, opposition parties also pointed to the Harper government’s 2012 repeal and

3 Note: The Green Party’s 2011 election platform was considerably shorter than in other years, totalling only 12 pages.

23 | P a g e replacement of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) as further indication of the federal governments disregard for the environment. The Harper government’s amendments to the Act were highly contested by environmental groups primarily for the Act’s significant reductions in the number of projects that required an environmental assessment, increased

Cabinet oversight into the approval for energy projects, and reduction in the role of public participation (Stacey, 2016). The former Environment Minister, Peter Kent, supported the CEAA reforms and claimed that the amendments would make the environmental review process

“more predictable and timely, reduce duplication, strengthen environmental protection, and enable meaningful consultation with Aboriginal peoples” (Kinney, 2015).

Alternatively, environmentalists protested that that the reforms would lead to the end of substantive environment assessment processes (Kinney, 2015). On the one hand, the Harper government received support from the Liberal Party for streamlining both timely and costly environmental review processes. As stated by a Liberal member during the House of Commons

Debate in 2012, “On the environment, we on the Liberal side would not oppose streamlining of environmental evaluation processes” (Canada, 3 April 2012). However, the Liberals immediately denounced their support for the government’s CEAA reforms on the basis that “one can tell that the Prime Minister clearly wants that pipeline to be built, come hell or high water, whatever the consequences for the environment and for aboriginal people. That is why we oppose it. He is not just streamlining environmental regulation, he is cutting it out so that he can get his favourite pipeline built. That is sufficient reason for us to oppose it” (Canada, 3 April

2012). The NDP was also outspoken in their opposition to the CEAA amendments. As stated by one NDP member: “it is [the Conservative’s] dogged promotion of disastrous environmental

24 | P a g e policy that is truly outrageous. The Conservatives want to gut…the environmental assessment process. They want to send hundreds of supertankers through some of the world's most dangerous waters off some of the world's most fragile coastline” (Canada, 4 April 2012).

The deregulating of environmental processes also raised concerns among environmental advocates and opposition parties such as the NDP, regarding Canada’s pipeline spill response capacity. In a statement to the House of Commons Debate in 2013, the NDP claimed that “pipeline leaks and spills have tripled under this Conservative government, and this is even more troubling because the Conservatives have weakened the assessment rules so that projects can go ahead with even less due diligence” (Canada, 28 October 2013).

Policy Implications and Public Perceptions

During the nine-year reign of the Conservative government, public opinion polls show that Stephen Harper was unable to establish a substantial connection with the majority of

Canadian voters. An EKOS poll shows that Harper received a staggering 62 percent disapproval rate by Canadians during the 2015 federal election campaigns (Dickson, 2015).4 These numbers were up only slightly from 2009, where 49 percent of Canadians reported that they didn’t trust

Harper to ‘do the right thing’ in terms of the economy (Angus Reid, 2009). In 2013, 50 percent of Canadians believed that Harper was harboring a secret agenda (Ipsos, 2013).5

The Harper governments aggressive pursuit of oil sands development ultimately failed to reflect the political will of the general population in terms of the environment. However, the

4 Respondents were asked: Do you approve or disapprove of the way the following individuals are handling their jobs? 5 Respondents were asked: And assuming Justin Trudeau wins the Liberal Leadership race, please indicate which major party leader is best described by the following traits: Someone who has a hidden agenda.

25 | P a g e majority of Canadians (63 percent) perceived that the government’s official response to climate change was ‘too weak’ (Angus Reid, 2014),6 and just as many (63 percent) believed that Harper had not struck a proper balance between the environment and the economy (Ipsos, 2012).7

Canadian’s negative views towards Harper’s environmental policies remained relatively consistent during the periods analyzed. For instance, results from a 2010 poll show that 66 percent of Canadians believed that the Harper government was paying too little attention to the environment (Angus Reid, 2010).8

Additionally, its policies were denounced by scholars at the time, referring to the repeal and replacement of the CEAA, for example, as “radical reductions in the federal government’s role in environmental protection” (Stacey, 2016). One scholar noted that Harper’s policies appear to “reflect an assumption of a zero-sum trade-off between resource development and environmental protection” (Stacey, 2016). Peyton and Franks (2016) also argued that Harper’s policies were part of a concentrated effort to suppress the environment “under a singular resource extraction paradigm.” Through the promotion of pipeline and oilsands development, coupled with the withdrawal from Kyoto Protocol, dismantling of the CEAA, and lack of climate change initiatives (for instance, the failure to regulate GHG emissions from the oil sands sector), the public ultimately questioned the Harper government’s ability to pursue development without sacrificing the environment for economic gain.

6 Respondents were asked: Do you think Canada’s overall official approach to climate change and reducing greenhouse gas emissions has been too aggressive, about right, or too weak in recent years? 7 Respondents were asked: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements? The Harper government is doing a good job in protecting Canada’s environment. 8 Respondents were asked: Overall, do you think the federal government is paying too much attention, the right amount of attention, or too little attention to the environment?

26 | P a g e

In 2014, an Angus Reid poll shows that 75 percent of Canadians believed the threat of climate change to be ‘serious’ or ‘very serious,’ and nearly 65 percent desired Canada to become a global leader on climate change (Angus Reid, 2014).9 The growing concern among

Canadians about climate change has contributed to their increasing reluctance to support future pipeline development. Though this reluctance is in part due to fear of local toxicity risks, such as oil spills (27 percent), most Canadians (37 percent) reported that it was their anxiety towards the impacts of climate change that led to their desire to see Canada shift away from fossil fuel dependence and towards cleaner sources of energy (Anderson & Coletto, 2017).10

This is confirmed by a 2017 poll by Abacus Data revealing that increasing fears about the impacts of climate change among are changing the public’s views of how Canada should manage its oil resources – including 48 percent of Albertans, and 35 percent of Conservative voters overall (Anderson & Coletto, 2017).11 This is despite the fact that 68 percent of

Canadians agreed that pipelines play an integral role in the Canadian economy, and that 63 percent agreed pipelines deliver huge amounts of energy with few incidents (Anderson &

Coletto, 2017).12

As a result, leading into the 2015 federal campaigns, 65 percent of Canadians reported that ‘protecting the environment’ should be Canada’s biggest priority in shaping energy policy

9 Respondents were asked: How much of a threat, if any, do you think climate change poses for planet earth? 10 Respondents were asked to indicate if they ‘strongly agree,’ ‘agree’, ‘disagree,’ or ‘strongly disagree’ with the statement: I’ve grown more worried about climate change and it is changing my view of oil 11 Ibid. 12 Respondents were asked if they ‘strongly agree,’ ‘agree,’ ‘disagree,’ ‘strongly disagree,’ or are ‘unsure’ with the statement: Pipelines play an essential role in the economy of Canada and Pipelines deliver a huge amount of energy across Canada, with few incidents

27 | P a g e going forward (Angus Reid, 2014).13 In fact, when asked what the Conservative Party’s greatest failures were during their nine-year tenure, over half of Canadian’s (53 percent) pointed to its failures on the environment, such as pulling Canada out of the Kyoto Accord, as well as

“prohibiting scientists from speaking about their research [on climate change]” (Angus Reid,

2015).14 The mismatch between the priorities of the Harper government (that being, economic development), and the desires of the public (stronger environmental regulations), ultimately cost Harper the confidence of Canadians to steer Canada towards developing sustainable and responsible energy development practices. Thus, the Conservatives were defeated by the

Liberal Party in 2015, who emphasized strong action on climate change and strict environmental standards.

Pipeline Framing under the Trudeau Liberals

“A clean environment and a strong economy go hand in hand” (Trudeau, 2015).

A key frame employed by current Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is that of “balance” between pipeline development and the environment. In the 2015 Speech from the Throne address, the Trudeau government stated that it “will prove to Canadians and to the world that a clean environment and a strong economy go hand in hand. We cannot have one without the other” (Trudeau, 2015). Trudeau emphasized the importance for Canada to develop sustainable development practices, meaning that, though the Liberal government supports the continued

13 Respondents were asked: In shaping Canada’s energy policy, what do you see as the biggest priority? Protecting the environment or Encouraging economic growth. 14 Respondents were asked: What were the Conservative government’s biggest accomplishments and failures?

28 | P a g e development of Canada’s oil sands, it must be done in a sustainable and environmentally responsible manner. During the 2015 election campaign, the Liberal Party proposed to establish a national carbon pricing regime and to restore greater public participation within major energy project approvals (Liberal Party of Canada, 2015). In doing so, the Liberals assured Canadians that it would be taking serious action on climate change and the environment. Also, by advocating for greater environmental protection and pipelines simultaneously, the Liberals attempted to appeal to both pro- and anti-pipeline proponents.

Analysis of the Liberals’ recent election platforms support this assertion. Table 3 shows the results from a word frequency query from the Liberals’ 2008, 2011, and 2015 election platforms. The results show that the Liberals placed emphasis on words such as ‘clean’ (107 times), ‘climate’ (102), ‘Aboriginal’ (83 times), and ‘environment’ (69 times). Analysis of NDP and Green Party platforms during the same periods produce similar results, reported in

Appendix C, which frequently emphasize environmentally conscious words such as ‘climate,’

‘water,’ ‘emissions,’ ‘carbon,’ and ‘sustainable.’ However, the Liberal platform also emphasized words that appealed to Conservative voters, such as ‘energy’ (131), ‘infrastructure’ (130 times),

‘investment’ (116 times), ‘jobs’ (108 times), and ‘development’ (106 times).

29 | P a g e

Table 3: Twenty most frequents words from Liberal Party election platforms (2008, 2001, and 2015)

Word Count Word Count 1. Energy 131 11. Children 76 2. Infrastructure 130 12. Growth 73 3. Investment 116 13. Benefits 71 4. Economic 112 14. Environment 69 5. Jobs 108 15. Innovation 68 6. Clean 107 16. Quality 68 7. Development 106 17. Students 67 8. Climate 102 18. Housing 66 9. Security 84 19. Research 65 10. Aboriginal 83 20. Women 65

A key motivation behind the Liberals’ push to promote a ‘balanced’ approach to the economy, environment, and energy, was to distance itself from the Harper government’s economic-focused approach to Canada’s energy strategy. By relying on the oil sands to be the sole economic drivers of the economy, the Liberals’ argued that the Harper government destroyed Canada’s international reputation and ultimately made it harder for Canadian businesses to compete by failing to take meaningful action on climate change. The Liberal Party reiterated this sentiment to the House of Commons in a statement that Canadians have lost nearly 500 million jobs under the Harper government’s “three-prong strategy” to the economy, that being “… oil, oil, and oil” (Canada, 27 January 2015). In the wake of the 2013 collapse in global oil prices, the Trudeau government stressed the importance of diversifying the country’s energy mix and transitioning Canada into a lower-carbon future. In a 2015 speech, Prime

Minister Justin Trudeau stated:

30 | P a g e

“In the last decade, as every other country in the world moved forward into clean tech, into

building a stronger, more sustainable economy, Harper took us backwards. By denying climate

change, he denied Canadians opportunity: the opportunity to strengthen our economy; to take advantage of the ingenuity and talent of our people; and to take the lead in the race to create new,

high-tech, clean jobs” (Trudeau, 2015).

As an alternative, Trudeau assured the public that, moving forward, pipeline approvals in Canada would have the public confidence of Canadians under the new Liberal regime. This is typically referred to as a ‘social license,’ and is the second major frame employed by the Liberal government regarding pipelines. While officially undefined, a social license intends to “explain or to justify an institution or a moral or political rule by referring to the consent of all persons concerned with it” (Demuijnck & Fasterling, 2016). This generally includes gaining the trust and consent of affected communities for a project through “listen[ing] to Canadians, to consult with them, and build new processes that reflect their concerns and respond to their priorities”

(Canada, 28 January 2016). Although there is no legal requirement for project developers to acquire a social license, the Liberals repeatedly emphasized that the failure to do so is what ultimately hindered the previous Conservative government from getting pipelines built. Former

Minister of Natural Resources, Jim Carr, stated:

“… I would ask [Conservative] members how many major pipelines they built in 10 years. The

answer would be zero. The reason they did not build major pipelines is that their process did not have the public confidence of Canadians. We are talking to Canadians now, and what comes

31 | P a g e after these consultations will be Canadians' confidence in delivering these resources to market

in a sustainable way” (Canada, 25 January 2016).

Expanding Canada’s pipeline network, and therefore, its economic prosperity, has been a central goal of the Conservative Party throughout this analysis. However, by attributing a social frame to pipelines (public confidence and integrity), the Liberals attempt to undermine the Conservative notion that pipelines are a fundamentally economic concern. However, the

Conservatives were quick to correct the Liberal claim that the Conservative government had not produced a single pipeline in 10 years, referring to the northern Alberta Clipper pipeline, which began service in April 2010, the TransCanada Keystone pipeline (not Keystone XL) implemented in June 2010, the Kinder Morgan anchor loop project completed in 2006, and the

Enbridge Line 9 reversal, applied for in 2014. The Conservative Party reminded the Liberals that, “over 1.2 billion barrels of oil flowing in projects that were started and implemented in the last 10 years” under the Conservative regime (Canada, 26 January 2016).

In November 2016, Prime Minister Trudeau declared the government’s approval of the

Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Expansion Project and the Enbridge Line 3 Replacement Project, placing emphasis upon job creation, safety, and the adherence of the projects to the “strictest environmental standards” (Trudeau, 2016). The Prime Minister also introduced a moratorium on crude oil tanker shipping on BC’s northern coast and rejected the Northern Gateway pipeline, citing that the pipeline was “not in the best interests of local affected communities, and Indigenous peoples” (Trudeau, 2016). However, these decisions were denounced by many

Indigenous communities in Alberta and BC. For instance, Elmer Ghostkeeper of the Buffalo Lake

32 | P a g e

Metis Settlement in Alberta, expressed that over 30 out of the 42 bands along the Northern

Gateway path were denied nearly $2 billion in business and employment opportunities following Trudeau’s rejection of the project (Cattaneo, 2017). In BC, the Lax Kw’alaams Indian

Band filed a civil claims suit with the Supreme Court of BC to declare the tanker ban “an unjustified infringement on the plaintiff’s aboriginal rights and title” (Cattaneo, 2018).

Furthermore, in a 2016 speech to a town hall in Ontario, Trudeau sparked anger among

Canadians in a statement that, “We can't shut down the oilsands tomorrow. We need to phase them out. We need to manage the transition off of our dependence on fossil fuels” (Muzyka,

2017).

The Liberals’ self-labelled balanced approach to pipeline approvals was quickly attacked by Conservative critics. Fundamentally, they argued that increased political and public oversight of approval processes, coupled with a moratorium on crude oil shipments, were simply a Liberal strategy to road-block pipelines and future oil sands development to appease environmental interest groups. The Conservative Party argued that “tens of thousands of jobs are being lost in the energy sector because of low oil prices, because of over-regulation, and because of carbon taxes, and now there is more uncertainty from the Liberal government when it comes to pipelines” (Canada, 9 December 2015). As a result, the Conservatives warned that, under the new Liberal government, “the energy sector, the single largest job-creating sector in the province of Alberta, is looking elsewhere for opportunity. Because of the positions the government is taking, companies are feeling less confident of their future in Alberta” (Canada,

27 January 2016). According to the Conservatives, the decisions to reject certain pipelines over others was not based on a scientific evidence, rather, a highly politicized, ideological opposition

33 | P a g e to oil sands development. By under-developing Canada’s pipeline capacity, they also insisted that oil companies would be forced to move their oil via rail — which poses a significantly riskier and inefficient alternative. “Frankly,” a Conservative member stated, “it’s disturbing”

(Canada, 28 January 2016).

In contrast, the NDP criticized the Liberal approvals of the “unclean and unethical” pipeline projects and questioned the ability for the Liberals to transition Canada into a lower- carbon energy future as they had promised during the 2015 elections (Canada, 13 February

2017). The Green Party also denounced the Liberals’ pipeline approvals as a step backwards in relieving Canada from its dependence on foreign oil and exporting jobs out of the country.

Policy Implications and Public Perceptions

Public perceptions of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau contrasts strongly to perceptions of former Prime Minister Stephen Harper. In December 2015, Trudeau enjoyed a 63 percent approval rating from Canadians (Angus Reid, 2015) who described him as charismatic (50 percent), modern (43 percent), and compassionate (31 percent) (Angus Reid, 2015). 1516

Further, during the 2015 federal elections, 39 percent of Canadian voters believed that Trudeau is the leader whose values best represent their own - compared to 32 percent who said for

Harper (Ipsos, 2015).17

15 Respondents were asked: Overall do you approve or disapprove of Justin Trudeau? 16 Respondents were asked: Please select up to six words from the following list that you would use to describe Justin Trudeau 17 Respondents were asked to choose ‘Someone whose values best represent your own’ given the choices of Stephen Harper, Justin Trudeau, or Thomas Muclair

34 | P a g e

The Trudeau government’s balanced approach to energy development initially fared well with Canadians. In 2015, prior to the election of the Liberals, the strategy for national carbon pricing garnered support from the majority of Canadians (63 percent) (Angus Reid,

2015).18 At this time, Canadians were eager to support a change in leadership over the previous Conservative government. Results from a 2016 poll show that Canadians placed a greater confidence in Trudeau to handle the economy (32 percent) than Harper (21 percent)

(Angus Reid, 2016).19 However, leading into 2017, additional polling revealed that Canadians’ overall support for the national carbon pricing plan deteriorated as its economic consequences became apparent. These include higher costs of living and concerns about Canadian businesses’ comparative disadvantage relative to the U.S., which, under the Trump administration, abandoned its climate change initiatives in 2017. As a result, national support for carbon pricing dropped to 44 percent in July 2017 (Angus Reid, 2017).20 Opposition to carbon pricing is strongest in Saskatchewan, Alberta, and New Brunswick, respectively (53 percent, 50 percent, and 48 percent) and lowest within Quebec (17 percent) (Angus Reid,

2017).

Canadians have also experienced declining optimism regarding the Liberal government’s ability to effectively manage the economy. The decisions by the government to approve certain pipelines (i.e. the Trans Mountain expansion) and deny others (i.e. the Northern Gateway pipeline), coupled with Trudeau’s statement on phasing out the oil sands, have not fared well

18 Respondents were asked if they ‘support,’ ‘oppose,’ or ‘don’t know’ Justin Trudeau’s campaign promise to ‘meet with provincial premiers within 90 days to develop a carbon pricing policy’ 19 Respondents were asked: Which is best suited to deal with the economy? 20 Respondents were asked: Based on whatever you’ve seen or heard about the federal government’s plan [for carbon pricing], would you say you support or oppose it?

35 | P a g e among the majority of the population. In 2017, more Canadians were inclined to agree that

Canada is doing a ‘poor’ or ‘very poor’ job of providing a predictable and clear policy environment for investors (Nanos, 2017).21 Nearly half of Canadians (49.7 percent) were also inclined to report that Canada was doing a ‘poor’ or ‘very poor’ job at building public confidence in energy decision-making (Nanos, 2017).22

Even so, under the Trudeau government, Canadians are still motivated to support a national transition away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energies. Data from 2017 shows that almost half of Canadians would prefer to see oil demand decline within the next 10 years (Anderson & Coletto, 2017).23 Though these sentiments are highest among NDP and

Liberal voters, a striking 44 percent of Conservative voters feel this way (Anderson & Coletto,

2017). Correspondingly, the desire among Canadians to move away from fossil fuel dependence has resulted in a decline in positive support for new pipeline capacity. In 2014, 58 percent of

Canadians supported new pipeline development and in 2017, this number dropped to 44 percent (Anderson & Coletto, 2017).24

Fundamentally, public attitudes about pipelines are becoming increasing shaped by concerns about climate change, and the sense that Canada should not refrain on new energy innovations due to its reliance on oil (Anderson & Coletto, 2017). Still, the majority of

21 Respondents were asked if they believe Canada is doing a ‘very poor/poor job’ or ‘good/very good’ in ‘providing a clear, predictable and competitive policy and regulatory environment for energy investors’ 22 Respondents were asked if they believe Canada is doing a ‘very poor/poor job’ or ‘good/very good’ in ‘building public confidence in energy decision-making’ 23 Respondents were if they prefer to see demand for oil ‘increase,’ ‘decrease,’ or ‘stay about the same,’ over the next 10 years 24 Respondents were asked: How do you feel about building new pipeline capacity in Canada to help deliver Canada’s energy to new markets?

36 | P a g e

Canadians appear inclined to believe that Canada should harness its oil resources and build pipeline capacity under the condition that the country continues to take strong action on climate change (Anderson & Coletto, 2017).25

Harmonizing the economy and the environment with pipeline development has appeared to be a successful framing technique by the Trudeau government. In fact, 79 percent of Canadians believe that combatting climate change will open up economic opportunities, and

49 percent would not consider a future political candidate that does not promote climate change action (Anderson & Coletto, 2018).2627 Ultimately, the Trudeau government has managed to satisfy desires by the public regarding energy policy and pipeline development.

This is despite negative reactions expressed by many Canadians to certain impacts of Trudeau’s policies, including increased costs of living as a result of carbon pricing and decreasing investor confidence, the government has managed to capture. By appealing to both pro- and anti- pipeline advocates, Trudeau has resonated positively with the majority of Canadians in this regard.

25 For the Keystone XL pipeline, 33 percent support the pipeline and 25 percent say they can support it under certain conditions. On the Trans Mountain pipeline, 31 percent support the pipeline and 27 percent say they can support it under certain circumstances 26 Respondents were asked: In the next federal election or provincial election which best describes the role of climate change in how you will choose who to vote for (would only vote for candidate/party committed to fighting climate change, would consider a candidate/party that didn’t emphasize the issue, or would prefer a party/candidate that favoured doing nothing) 27 Respondents were asked if they ‘agree’ or ‘disagree’ with the following statement: combatting climate change will open up economic opportunities

37 | P a g e

Conclusion

A key theme throughout this analysis has been the political framing of the trade-off between the economy and the environment. The development, production, and transportation of oil from Canada’s oil sands is not only a major economic driver for the country, but it also has environmental consequences. The perception that the desire of the government to pursue economic prosperity through oil and gas development is inconsistent with the principles of sustainable development (development where the environmental is not sacrificed for economic gain) has become apparent among Canadians.

For instance, the Harper government’s inclination to frame pipelines as a primarily economic issue and benefit ultimately limited its ability to establish public confidence among

Canadians to responsibly govern the environment. This was particularly damaging to the

Harper governments reputation during a period where concerns about climate change were becoming a dominant policy issue in Canada. Instead, many Canadians found a restored confidence in Justin Trudeau, who promised stringent action on climate change and a modernized, sustainable approach to energy development. However, the Trudeau government’s attempts to frame pipeline development as a balance between the environment and the economy eventually led to beliefs that the increasing precedence of the environment was becoming a threat to the economy. For instance, Trudeau’s national carbon pricing strategy, though initially welcomed by the majority of Canadians, has become increasingly criticized for placing Canadian businesses at a competitive disadvantage to other jurisdictions.

Enhanced environmental requirements for pipeline develops has also become denounced as detrimental to investor confidence in Canada.

38 | P a g e

Today, public opinion regarding energy development is ever-changing. It is influenced by a variety of factors, including political and media discourse and external events, such as environmental disasters. This analysis highlights the ongoing challenge for government to balance public desire for economic prosperity, and meaningful action on climate change and the environment. Democracies cannot properly function if the will of the population is not reflected within governmental policies and actions, therefore, the relationship between public opinion and public policy is fundamental to political representation. Hence, the results of this study illustrate the ability for public opinion to alter energy policy development, and the importance of political rhetoric in shaping these opinions.

39 | P a g e

References:

Abacus Data (2015). Election 2015: Tracking the Issues and the Polls. Retrieved from http://angusreid.org/results-and-methodologies/.

Adams-Heard, R., and K. Orland (20 July 2018). Keystone XL’s new path gets positive U.S. environment review. Financial Post. Retrieved from https://business.financialpost.com/commodities/energy/keystone-xls-new-path-gets- positive-u-s-environment-review.

Alberta plunges 18 spots on global ranking of best places to invest in oil and gas. (2017, December 6). Financial Post. Retrieved from http://business.financialpost.com/commodities/energy/alberta-plunges-on-global-ranking- of-the-best-places-to-invest-in-oil-and-gas.

Alini, E. (5 October 2017). TransCanada’s Energy East: Not enough oil for that pipeline, analysts say. Global News. Retrieved from https://globalnews.ca/news/3786953/energy-east- transcanada/.

Anderson, B. and D. Coletto (9 September 2017). Public Attitudes on Oil, Pipelines, Climate, and Change. Abacus Data. Retrieved from http://abacusdata.ca/public-attitudes-on-oil- pipelines-climate-and-change/.

Anderson, B. and D. Coletto (20 May 2017). Transition from fossil fuels? Not all that controversial. Abacus Data. Retrieved from http://abacusdata.ca/transition-from-fossil- fuels-not-all-that-controversial/.

Anderson, B. and D. Coletto (9 November 2018). For Canadian politicians, it’s riskier to ignore climate change than it is to propose solutions. Abacus Data. Retrieved from http://abacusdata.ca/political-risk-climate-action/.

As First Ministers ready for national summit, economy dwarfs all other issues on Canadians’ minds (23 February 2016). Angus Reid Institute. Retrieved from http://angusreid.org/federal-issues/.

Bozinoff, L. (2016, March 17). Majority approve of all three controversial pipelines. The Forum Poll. Retrieved from http://poll.forumresearch.com/post/2480/most-see-pipelines-as- safer-than-rail-for-moving-crude/.

Canada. House of Commons Debates. 12 July 2007 (Hon. Jim Prentice, CPC). https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/35-2/house/hansard-index.

40 | P a g e

Canada. House of Commons Debates. 16 March 2010 (Mr. Thomas Muclair, NDP). https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/40-3/house/sitting-6/hansard.

Canada. House of Commons Debates. 2 December 2010 (Mr. Bernard Bigras, BQ). https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/40-3/house/sitting-109/hansard

Canada. House of Commons Debates. 8 June 2011 (Mr. David Anderson, CPC). https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/41-1/house/sitting-5/hansard.

Canada. House of Commons Debates. 27 September 2011 (Hon. Joe Oliver, CPC). https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/41-1/house/sitting-21/hansard.

Canada. House of Commons Debates. 2 February 2012 (Ms. Megan Leslie, NDP). https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/41-1/house/sitting-72/hansard.

Canada. House of Commons Debates. 7 February 2012 (Ms. Kirsty Duncan, Lib.). https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/41-1/house/sitting-75/hansard.

Canada. House of Commons Debates. 3 April 2012 (Hon. John McCallum, Lib.). https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/41-1/house/sitting-105/hansard.

Canada. House of Commons Debates. 4 April 2012 (Ms. Peggy Nash, NDP). https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/41-1/house/sitting-106/hansard.

Canada. House of Commons Debates. 28 October 2013 (Mr. Peter Julian, NDP). https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/41-2/house/sitting-9/hansard.

Canada. House of Commons Debates. 31 October 2013 (Mr. Jack Harris, NDP). https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/41-2/house/sitting-12/hansard.

Canada. House of Commons Debates. 7 November 2013 (Mrs. Kelly Brock, CPC). https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/41-2/house/sitting-16/hansard.

Canada. House of Commons Debates. 25 February 2014 (Mrs. Joan Crockatt, CPC). https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/41-2/house/sitting-51/hansard.

Canada. House of Commons Debates. 27 January 2015 (Hon. Scott Brison, Lib.). https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/41-2/house/sitting-163/hansard.

Canada. House of Commons Debates. 9 December 2015 (Hon. Candice Bergen, CPC). https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/house/sitting-5/hansard.

Canada. House of Commons Debates. 25 January 2016 (Hon. Jim Carr, Lib.). https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/house/sitting-8/hansard.

41 | P a g e

Canada. House of Commons Debates. 26 January 2016 (Mr. Blaine Calkins, CPC). https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/house/sitting-9/hansard.

Canada. House of Commons Debates. 27 January 2016 (Mr. Kelly McCauley, CPC). https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/house/sitting-10/hansard.

Canada. House of Commons Debates. 28 January 2016 (Hon. Jim Carr, Lib.). https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/house/sitting-11/hansard.

Canada. House of Commons Debates. 28 January 2016 (Hon. Candice Bergen, CPC). https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/house/sitting-11/hansard.

Canada. House of Commons Debates. 13 February 2017 (Mr. Kennedy Stewart, NDP). https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/house/sitting-139/hansard.

Canadians excited about Trudeau win, less so about key campaign promises on refugees, TFSAs, pot (2 November 2015). Angus Reid Institute. Retrieved from http://angusreid.org/trudeau- first-priorities/.

Canadians Fairly Optimistic About Prospects for National Economy (2010). Angus Reid Institute. Retrieved from http://angusreid.org/canadians-fairly-optimistic-about-prospects-for- national-economy/.

Cattaneo, C. (10 April 2017). ‘We are very disappointed’: Loss of Northern Gateway devastating for many First Nations, chiefs say. Financial Post. Retrieved from https://business.financialpost.com/commodities/energy/we-are-very-disappointed-loss-of- northern-gateway-devastating-for-many-first-nations-chiefs-say.

Cattaneo, C. (22 March 2018). ‘An unjustified infringement’: First Nation sues Ottawa, British Columbia over oil tanker ban. Retrieved from https://business.financialpost.com/commodities/energy/an-unjustified-infringement-first- nation-sues-ottawa-british-columbia-over-oil-tanker-ban.

‘Charismatic’ and ‘Modern’ or ‘Arrogant’ and ‘Flaky’? Canadians weigh in on the Trudeau Brand (19 October 2017). Angus Reid Institute. Retrieved from http://angusreid.org/trudeau- brand/.

Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (2017). Crude Oil Forecast, Markets and Transportation. Retrieved from https://www.capp.ca/publications-and- statistics/publications/303440.

Canadians Want More Action on the Environment (20 July 2010). Angus Reid Institute. Retrieved from http://angusreid.org/canadians_want_more_action_on_the_environment/.

42 | P a g e

Conservative Party of Canada (2008). The True North Strong and Free: Stephen Harper’s plan for Canadians. Election platform.

Conservative Party of Canada (2013). Policy Declaration. https://www.conservative.ca/media/documents/Policy-Declaration-Feb-2014.pdf.

Conservative Party of Canada (2015). Our Conservative Plan to Protect the Economy. Election platform.

Demuijnck, G. and B. Fasterling (2016). The Social License to Operate. Journal of Business Ethics, 136(4), 676. https://link-springer-com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/article/10.1007/s10551-015- 2976-7.

Dickson, Janice. The EKOS poll: Harper’s approval numbers hitting ‘near historical lows.’ iPolitics. Retrieved from https://ipolitics.ca/2015/06/05/the-ekos-poll-harpers-approval- numbers-hitting-near-historical-lows/.

Downs, A. (1957). An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy. Journal of Political Economy, 65(2), 145-148. https://www-jstor- org.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/stable/pdf/1827369.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Acca1ac925f9d91 1b7873736a041622bf.

Dusyk, N., J. Axsen, and K. Dullemond (2018). Who cares about climate change? The mass media and socio-political acceptance of Canada’s oil sands and Northern Gateway Pipeline. Energy Research & Social Science, 37, 14.

Green, K. and T. Jackson (2015, August 14). Pipelines are the safest way to transport oil and gas. Fraser Institute. https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/pipelines-are-safest-way-transport- oil-and-gas.

Green Party of Canada (2015). Building a Canada that Works. Together. Election Platform.

Half of Canadians support Kinder Morgan pipeline expansions, just over half back protests against it, and some actually support both (18 December 2014). Angus Reid Institute. Retrieved from http://angusreid.org/half-canadians-support-kinder-morgan-expansion/.

Harper, S. (16 October 2013). Seizing Canada’s Moment: Prosperity and Opportunity in an Uncertain World. Speech from the Throne. http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2013/gg/SO1-1-2013-eng.pdf.

Harper dismisses Kyoto as ‘socialist scheme.’ (30 January 2007). CBC News. Retrieved from https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/harper-s-letter-dismisses-kyoto-as-socialist-scheme- 1.693166.

43 | P a g e

Ilnyckyj, M. (2017). Networks and Frames in Pipeline Resistance. Canadian Political Science Association, 7-14. https://cpsa-acsp.ca/documents/conference/2017/Ilnyckyj.pdf.

Kheraj, S. (30 March 2018). The complicated history of pipeline politics in Canada. The Conversation. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/the-complicated-history-of- building-pipelines-in-canada-97450.

Kinney, N. (2015). Burning down the house: Environmental policy dismantling by the Harper government. Policy Alternatives. https://www.policyalternatives.ca/Harper_Record_2008- 2015/24-HarperRecord-Kinney.pdf.

Lachapelle, E., E. Montpetit, and G. Jean-Phillippe (2014). Public Perceptions of Expert Credibility on Policy Issues: The Role of Expert Framing and Political Worldviews. Policy Studies Journal, 42(4). https://onlinelibrary-wiley- com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/doi/full/10.1111/psj.12073.

Lakoff, G. (2010). Why it Matters How we Frame the Environment. Environmental Communication, 4(1). https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17524030903529749?scroll=top&needAcc ess=true.

Lawlor, A. and T. Gravelle (2018). Framing trans-border energy transportation: the case of Keystone XL. Environmental Politics, 27(4), 1-12. DOI: 10.1080/09644016.2018.1425106.

Liberal Party of Canada (2015). A New Plan for Strong Middle Class. Election Platform.

Majority (61%) Disagrees Harper Government Doing a Good Job Protecting Canada’s Environment (28 December 2012). Ipsos. Retrieved from https://www.ipsos.com/en- ca/majority-61-disagrees-harper-government-doing-good-job-protecting-canadas- environment.

Majority of Canadians call for more robust efforts to curb climate change (23 October 2014). Angus Reid Institute. Retrieved from http://angusreid.org/majority-of-canadians-call-for- more-robust-efforts-to-curb-climate-change-2/.

McNeely A., and K. Orland (22 February 2018). ‘I’m not crazy about Canada’: Investors bail on trapped oil as pipeline problems worsen. Financial Post. Retrieved from https://business.financialpost.com/commodities/energy/investors-bail-on-landlocked- canada-oil-as-pipeline-woes-deepen.

Muzyka, K. (13 January 2017). Trudeau’s ‘phase out’ oilsands comments spark outrage in Alberta. CBC News. Retrieved from https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/justin- trudeau-oilsands-phase-out-1.3934701.

44 | P a g e

Natural Resources Canada (2018). Crude oil facts. Retrieved from http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/facts/crude-oil/20064.

Nanos (2017). Canadians more negative than positive about energy decision-making. Positive Energy. Retrieved from http://www.nanos.co/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/2017-1058- positive-energy-sep-omni-populated-report-with-tabs-r.pdf.

New Democratic Party of Canada (2011). Giving your Family a Break — Practical First Steps. Election Platform.

Oliver, J. (9 January 2012). An open letter from Minister Oliver on our energy markets and the regulatory process. Natural Resources Canada. https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/media- room/news-release/2012/1911.

Peyton, J. and A. Franks (2016). The New Nature of Things? Canada’s Conservative Government and the Design of the New Environmental Subject. Antipode, 48(2). http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/ehost/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=42f6a1 94-e2e7-4ce9-88c3- f3b111ef989b%40sessionmgr120&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=11283 5267&db=a9h.

Ripberger, T., K. Gupta, C. Silva, and H. Jenkins-Smith (2014). Cultural Theory and the Measurement of Deep Core Beliefs Within the Advocacy Coalition Framework. The Policy Studies Journal, 42(4), 509. https://onlinelibrary-wiley- com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/doi/epdf/10.1111/psj.12074.

Sabatier, P. (1988). An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy- oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences, 21(2-3), 139-149. https://link-springer- com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/content/pdf/10.1007%2FBF00136406.pdf.

Stacey, J. (2016). The environmental, democratic, and rule-of-law implications of Harper’s environmental assessment legacy. Review of Constitutional Studies, 21(2). http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/ps/retrieve.do?tabID=T002&resultListTyp e=RESULT_LIST&searchResultsType=SingleTab&searchType=AdvancedSearchForm¤t Position=1&docId=GALE%7CA480195426&docType=Article&sort=RELEVANCE&contentSeg ment=&prodId=LT&contentSet=GALE%7CA480195426&searchId=R1&userGroupName=uca lgary&inPS=true.

The Advocacy Coalition Framework (n.d.). Ebrary. Retrieved from https://ebrary.net/15806/sociology/advocacy_coalition_framework.

The Harper legacy: Canadians praise cuts to GST, balanced budgets, condemn environmental record (30 October 2015). Angus Reid Institute. Retrieved from http://angusreid.org/the- harper-legacy/.

45 | P a g e

The price ain’t right: Canadians liked carbon tax in theory, but support declines as plan becomes a reality (5 July 2017). Angus Reid Institute. Retrieved from http://angusreid.org/federal- carbon-pricing/.

Thomson, S. (11 April 2018). It wasn’t always this hard to get a pipeline built in Canada. National Post. Retrieved from https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/it-wasnt-always-this- hard-to-get-a-pipeline-built-in-canada.

Trudeau’s first month: PM enjoys strong approval ratings, but Canadians are divided on his deficit policy. Angus Reid Institute. Retrieved from http://angusreid.org/trudeau-first- month/.

Trudeau, J. (4 December 2015). Making Real Change Happen. Speech from the Throne. http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2015/gg/SO1-1-2015-eng.pdf.

Trudeau, J. (30 June 2015). Real Change: A New Plan for Canada’s Environment and Economy. Speech. https://www.liberal.ca/real-change-a-new-plan-for-canadas-environment-and- economy/.

Trudeau, J. (29 November 2016). Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Pipeline Announcement. https://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2016/11/29/prime-minister-justin-trudeaus-pipeline- announcement.

Trudeau’s Trajectory Trending Upward as Presumptive New Liberal Leader Creates Three-Way Race (4 April 2013). Ipsos. Retrieved from https://www.ipsos.com/en-ca/trudeaus- trajectory-trending-upward-presumptive-new-liberal-leader-creates-three-way-race.

Verma, A., B. Nimana, B. Olateju, M. Rahman, S. Radpour, C. Canter, V. Subramanyam, D. Paramashivan, M. Vaezi, A. Kumar (2017). A techno-economic assessment of bitumen and synthetic crude oil transport (SCO) in the Canadian oil sands industry: Oil via rail or pipeline? Elsevier, Energy 124 (2017): 665-683. https://ac-els-cdn- com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/S0360544217302311/1-s2.0-S0360544217302311- main.pdf?_tid=d755f7db-d6aa-442b-a876- ed9ac1161b1f&acdnat=1520268531_a5f806f71737c096477292fc2be754d3

What’s driving who Canadians Vote for on Election Day: Economy, Taxes, and the Desire for Change ‘Absolutely Critical’ (14 October 2015). Ipsos. Retrieved from https://www.ipsos.com/en-ca/whats-driving-who-canadians-will-vote-election-day- economy-taxes-and-desire-change-absolutely.

Zaller, J. (1992). The Nature and Origins of Mass Media Opinion. Cambridge University Press, 6- 7. https://doi-org.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/10.1017/CBO9780511818691.

46 | P a g e

Appendix A: Sentiment analysis of ‘pipeline(s)’ mentions (2007-2017)

Positive, negative, and neutral sentiments for ‘pipeline(s)’ mentions:

Year Positive Negative Neutral Total 2007 15 27 10 52 2008 11 16 9 36 2009 22 53 14 89 2010 21 144 33 198 2011 49 86 11 146 2012 145 325 109 579 2013 370 341 96 807 2014 185 497 76 758 2015 569 619 285 1473 2016 447 539 190 1176 2017 576 524 146 1246

Breakdown of ‘pipeline(s)’ mentions:

Total mentions: 6,560

Note: this number includes only the mentions of pipelines in the context of Canada and the oil sands. References to pipelines in other contexts were eliminated from this analysis.

Percentage of positive mentions: 36.7%

Percentage of negative mentions: 48.3%

Percentage of neutral mentions: 14.9%

47 | P a g e

Appendix B: Mentions of major pipeline projects during the debates in the House of Commons (2007-2017)

Mentions of major pipeline projects (table):

Trans Total Northern Mountain mentions / Keystone XL Gateway Energy East Expansion year 2010 1 15 - - 16 2011 33 14 - 7 54 2012 5 98 - 4 107 2013 203 56 17 5 281 2014 44 205 69 12 330 2015 35 53 70 5 163 2016 40 69 369 74 552 2017 39 131 217 201 588 Mentions in Total 400 641 742 308

Mentions of major pipeline projects (graph):

700

600

500

400

300

200 Word Word Count

100

0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Keystone XL Northern Gateway Energy East Trans Mountain Expansion

48 | P a g e

Appendix C: Twenty most frequent words from the NDP and Green Party election platforms (2008, 2011, and 2015)

Twenty most frequent words from the Green Party election platforms:

Word Count Word Count Energy 138 Trade 66 Water 120 Sustainable 65 Carbon 105 Environmental 64 Climate 102 Nuclear 62 Economic 101 Emissions 60 Development 88 Power 60 Poverty 86 Housing 59 Industry 71 Children 57 Community 67 Taxes 54 Security 67 Oil 53

Twenty most frequent words from the NDP election platforms:

Word Count Word Count Women 102 Housing 49 Energy 89 Poverty 49 Jobs 72 Employment 47 Affordable 67 Economic 44 Development 66 Investment 44 Infrastructure 63 Climate 42 Indigenous 61 Community 42 Benefits 58 Children 41 Training 53 Water 40 Workers 51 Climate 42

49 | P a g e