3. Methodology

• 3.1 Case Study Review
• 3.2 Literature Review
• 3.3 Interviews

The research design provided for a literature review, analysis of three federal EAs of projects situated within Aboriginal territories and interviews with Aboriginal peoples and/or organizations across the country.

3.1 Case Study Review

The three case studies chosen were

1. Panel Review of the Voisey’s Bay Mine and Mill project, Labrador;
2. Panel Review of the BHP Diamonds project, Northwest Territories (NWT); and
3. Comprehensive Study of the Diavik Diamonds project, NWT.

These three projects were selected based on several criteria, namely, they were

• fairly recent;
• covered under the Act;
• situated in a number of Aboriginal groups’ traditional territories; and
• proposed during a time when Aboriginal groups were in the process of negotiating comprehensive land claims agreements.

In addition, all of the projects had a fairly high level of Aboriginal involvement in the EA processes. Brief descriptions of the case study projects are included in Appendix 4.

The case study research focussed on submissions made by, or on behalf of, Aboriginal groups to the project proponents and/or review panels concerning an environmental impact statement (EIS) and/or a comprehensive study report. (Documents reviewed for each project are listed in the bibliography under Case Studies.)

3.2 Literature Review

The literature review focused on documents that described Aboriginal perspectives, recommendations and/or concerns about the federal EA process. The majority of the documents were “after-the-fact” commentaries on concluded federal EAs, position papers developed as part of the Five Year Review of the Act, or EA procedures contained in comprehensive land claims agreements.

3.3 Interviews

The researchers planned to conduct telephone discussions with Aboriginal persons with direct experience and knowledge of federal EA processes. A preliminary list of 29 people was developed. These individuals were either known by the researchers or were identified as key contacts within Aboriginal organizations that had been closely involved with the federal assessments under the three case studies.

All prospective interviewees were contacted by telephone to request if they would be willing to participate in the interviews. All parties contacted were very interested in participating in the survey, however, most were unable to allocate time to participate in the interview. Most indicated they wished to have the questions sent by e-mail so they could respond in writing. The researchers forwarded the list of questions and the interview guide to those interviewees unable to participate in a telephone interview (see Appendix 1). A second, and sometimes third call was made by the researchers to schedule interview times and/or inquire when written comments would be forthcoming.

At the time of writing, only four of the 29 prospective interviewees had either responded in writing or participated in a telephone interview. Although the researchers did not expect all persons on the list to participate, the low response rate was unexpected.

The researchers identified two potential reasons underlying the low response level:

1. Aboriginal peoples and organizations are often overburdened with requests to participate in surveys and interviews.
2. Aboriginal peoples have generally not been involved in significance determination in the context of a federal EA. Consequently, they have limited knowledge and/or comfort in discussing this issue.

| Previous | Contents | Print Version (PDF) | Next |