Explaining the environmental policy change of results-based regulation in Saskatchewan’s Ministry of Environment through an advocacy coalition, multiple streams, and critical discourse analysis perspective

Abstract

Discussions of environmental protection in the Canadian prairie province of Saskatchewan have historically been complex and controversial. With an economy that relies on emissions-heavy industry such as oil and gas production, mining, agriculture and forestry, the Government of Saskatchewan faces unique challenges in responding to the increasing calls for climate action and stricter regulations that will help minimize the effects of climate change. This seemingly deadlocked political and economic situation makes the 2010 introduction of results-based regulation in Saskatchewan a notable policy-making event, intended to both aid in environmental protection while allowing industry to thrive. An in-depth investigation of this policy change has not yet been conducted. How did this radical policy change come to be and who were the key players? Using an approach that draws on the Advocacy Coalition Framework and Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Framework, and Habermas’ methodology of critical discourse analysis, my qualitative study will identify the predominant policy entrepreneurs and advocacy coalitions surrounding Saskatchewan’s policy change to results-based regulation and explain their support or opposition from 2007 (the election of the Saskatchewan Party) to 2010 (the advent of results-based regulation in Saskatchewan). By analyzing the discourses utilized by the advocacy coalitions, I determine how they influenced the policy change to results-based regulation. Evaluating the quality of the debate, I discuss whether this new framework was arrived at ethically and whether it was the most beneficial option for Saskatchewan. The results of this investigation suggest that results-based regulation may not have been an acceptable solution for Saskatchewan’s environmental policy framework and that this decision should be revisited. Contributing to our understanding of Saskatchewan’s environmental policy-making landscape, this study further demonstrates the importance of discourse, ethicality, and coalition-building to the policy-making process, as well as the role of public consultation in upholding democracy, providing a set of guidelines for engaging in effective, ethical and democratic policy decision-making in Saskatchewan’s environmental policy sphere. Finally, this research advances policy theory by serving as the first applied demonstration of actualizing Habermas’ method of critical discourse analysis within a backdrop of Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Framework and the Advocacy Coalition Framework. Unearthing new learnings regarding policy entrepreneurs and advocacy coalitions, this study demonstrates how discourse can be used to couple Kingdon’s streams. By determining the events and discourses that lead to the successful introduction of results-based regulation within a complex political environment, I demonstrate lessons and potential strategies for creating large-scale environmental policy change in Saskatchewan again in the future. Keywords: results-based regulation; Advocacy Coalition Framework; Multiple Streams Framework; Kingdon; critical discourse analysis; Habermas; Theory of Communicative Action; validity claims; democracy; Saskatchewan; environmental policy; oil and gas; performance-based; output-based