In It Together

NOTE TO USERS
This reproduction is the best copy available.
UMI
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
IN IT TOGETHER:
ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING
THROUGH PARTICIPATION IN
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
by
Patricia Fitzpatrick
A thesis
presented to the University o f Waterloo
in fulfillment o f the
thesis requirement for the degree o f
Doctor of Philosophy
in
Geography
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada 2005
Patricia Fitzpatrick 2005
1*1
Library and
Archives Canada
Bibliotheque et
Archives Canada
Published Heritage
Branch
Direction du
Patrimoine de I'edition
395 W ellington Street

Ottawa ON K1A 0N4
Canada
395, rue W ellington

Ottawa ON K1A 0N4
Canada
Your file Votre reference
ISBN: 0-494-03016-X
Our file Notre reference
ISBN: 0-494-03016-X
NOTICE:
The author has granted a non
exclusive license allowing Library
and Archives Canada to reproduce,
publish, archive, preserve, conserve,
communicate to the public by
telecommunication or on the Internet,
loan, distribute and sell theses
worldwide, for commercial or non
commercial purposes, in microform,
paper, electronic and/or any other
formats.
AVIS:
L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive
permettant a la Bibliotheque et Archives
Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver,
sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public
par telecommunication ou par I'lnternet, preter,
distribuer et vendre des theses partout dans
le monde, a des fins commerciales ou autres,
sur support microforme, papier, electronique
et/ou autres formats.
The author retains copyright

ownership and moral rights in
this thesis. Neither the thesis
nor substantial extracts from it
may be printed or otherwise
reproduced without the author's
permission.
L'auteur conserve la propriete du droit d'auteur

et des droits moraux qui protege cette these.
Ni la these ni des extraits substantiels de
celle-ci ne doivent etre imprimes ou autrement
reproduits sans son autorisation.
In compliance with the Canadian

Privacy Act some supporting
forms may have been removed
from this thesis.
Conformement a la loi canadienne

sur la protection de la vie privee,
quelques formulaires secondaires
ont ete enleves de cette these.
While these forms may be included

in the document page count,
their removal does not represent
any loss of content from the
thesis.
Bien que ces formulaires

aient inclus dans la pagination,
il n'y aura aucun contenu manquant.
i*i
Canada
ANNEX 1
Copyright to be printed with the map or in an acknowledgements section
These maps were taken from the Atlas of Canada, http://atlas.gc.ca

2005. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada with permission of Natural Resources
Canada
iii
ABSTRACT
Can organizations learn through participation in environmental assessment (EA)? This was the
central research question of a study that explored the linkages among sustainable development,
EA, public participation, and learning. To address this question, the research design involved a
comparative case study of two concurrent but geographically separate projects, the Wuskwatim
generation station and transmission lines projects (Wuskwatim projects), and the Snap Lake
Diamonds Project (Snap Lake project). The Wuskwatim projects involve the construction of a
low head dam and three 230 kV transmission line segments in Northern Manitoba, Canada. The
Snap Lake Project involves the construction and operation of a diamond mine 220 km northwest
of Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, Canada, at the headwaters of the Lockhart River drainage
system. The EAs of these proposed developments provided multiple opportunities for public
(and organizational) involvement in the review, including comments on the scope of the
assessment, information requests, and public hearings.
Data collection included participant observation, semi-structured interviews with EA
participants, and documentation generated through the course of the reviews. Data were
organized using QSR Nvivo, a database software system.
In this dissertation, three key contributions are made. The theoretical framework that draws
together a number of separate but related fields of study - communicative action, discursive
democracy, transformative learning, organizational learning - is the first contribution. The
second is verification that organizations learn through participation in EA. Third, empirical
support is presented for the assertion that transformative learning can address change beyond
that experienced by the individual, to account for both policy-oriented and organizational
learning.
Related to the second contribution, results indicate that participants of EA engage in learning on
multiple scales. Furthermore, learning outcomes include both instrumental and communicative
learning.' Instrumental learning included an increased understanding of technical issues and
assessment tools, such as information requests. Communicative learning outcomes included the
importance of dialogue as a means of resolving issues and a refinement of strategies for
promoting organizational positions. At an organizational scale, learning by state actors,
iv
including government and tribunals, emphasized mechanisms designed to improve performance

within existing structures, or single-loop learning. Public actors, however, identified more
outcomes associated with changes to their theory-in-use, designed to change the structure of the
EA process, or double-loop learning. The discussion of learning supports the application of
transformative learning as a framework for considering different scales of learning, the third
contribution to research.
Findings revealed that individuals and organizations use project specific EA as an opportunity to
compel the development and implementation of sustainable initiatives. These findings suggest
that higher order learning for sustainability may be occurring through project based EA.
Results also revealed the importance of creating opportunities for discussion and debate as a
means of engaging organizations in and encouraging learning through EA. These findings
support Habermas' emphasis on dialogue as a means of negotiating political systems.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The completion of this study would not have been possible without the efforts of a number of
people, all of whom deserve recognition for their support. First and foremost, I am deeply
grateful to participants of the EA of the Wuskwatim generating station and transmission lines
projects, and the EA of the Snap Lake diamonds project, who, after spending countless hours on
the assessments, took time to share their knowledge and experiences with me.
My research has been guided by a wonderful committee, many of whom I am proud to consider
good friends. Bruce Mitchell provided valuable advice, guidance, and vigilant editorial skills
over the past four years. John Sinclair served as a sounding board for research ideas and life
directions, and was always a voice of reason in a sometime chaotic situation. Mary Louise
McAllister, along with providing thoughtful insights and unwavering support, was always
available to share a cup of tea. Bob Gibson and Kevin Hanna asked provoking questions and
directed my reading in new and interesting ways.
A PhD is more than the completion of a dissertation. Jean Andrey, Lynn Finch, and Clare
Mitchell shared wisdom with me throughout my tenure at the university. Theresa Wilcox
Henderson, Lorri Krebs, and Chui-Ling Tam were always available for discussions about
philosophy, frameworks and research frustrations, and lunches at the grad house.
I have been fortunate to live three different communities, and I am indebted to a number of
friends who supported my research. In Yellowknife, Marie, Dustin and Jhillian Adams are my
home away from home. In Winnipeg, Alan Diduck, Marlene Lagmodiere, Anke Kirch, Laura
McKay, Janna Shympko, Randall Shympko, and Brad Sparling supported my crazy writing
schedule, but also made sure I took time off to share good food and good company. In Guelph,
Jackie Pidduck, Jill Cartier and Kim Kehler made sure that I was always exposed to a world
outside my academic research..
Finally, my family has been a constant source of support. My mother, Nancy Baum, has always
supported my desire to continue my education, answering early morning telephone calls and
reviewing draft documents. Tracy, Brian, Andrew and Meaghan Lisson allowed me to shared in
their lives and sleep on their couch on countless occasions. The Lissons made sure I
vi
remembered where home is, and the importance of family. John, Samantha, Patrick, Dana and
Benjamin Rowland ensure that all family events are fun-filled and entertaining.
Funding for this study was provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of
Canada, the Ontario Graduate Scholarship Program, the University of Waterloo, and the
Northern Scientific Training Program.
While this research has been strengthened by the contributions of so many people, I alone am
responsible for its deficiencies.
vii
Oh, I have slipped the surly bonds of earth

And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings;
Sunward I've climbed, and joined the tumbling mirth
Of sun-split clouds...
John Gillespie Magee
High Flight
Whatever rose towards the light is left to sink unnamed: a shape

that passes slowly through a dream. Waking, all we remember is
the awesome presence, while a shadow lying dormant in the
twilight whispers from the other side of reason; I am here, I wait.
Timothy Findley
Famous Last Words
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Letter of Per m issio n ........................................................................................................................... iii

A bstr act ................................................................................................................................................... iv
A cknowledgements ......................
vi
Table of C o n t e n t s ................................................................................................................................ ix
List of Ta bl es .........................................................................................................................................xii
List of Fig u r e s ......................................................................................................................................xiv
List of A c r o n y m s ................................................................................................................................. xv
Chapter 1: Framing the Research ...................................................................................................1
1.1
Research problem......................................................................................................................... 2
1.2
Research obj ectives......................................................................................................................3
1.3
Significance o f the research.......................................................................................................4
1.4
Structure o f the dissertation....................................................................................................... 4
Chapter 2: Setting the Co ntext ...................................................................................................... 6
2.1
Communicative action................................................................................................................ 6
2.1.1 Deliberative democracy.......................................................................................................12
2.1.2
Communicative planning............................
..................................................... 13
2.1.3 Summary................................................................................................................................14
2.2
Sustainable development...........................................................................................................15
2.2.1 Environmental assessment.................................................................................................. 17
2.3
Education and learning..............................................................................................................20
2.3.1 Transformative learning..................................................................................................... 21
24
2.3.2 Summary.....................................................
2.4
Learning in organizations......................................................................................................... 25
2.4.1 Organizational learning...................................................................................................... 25
2.4.2 Summary............................................................................................................................... 28
2.5
Theoretical framework..............................................................................................................28
2.5.1 Individual............................................................................................................................... 29
2.5.1.1
Participatory..............................................................................................................29
2.5.1.2
Situated......................................................................................................................31
2.5.1.3
Critical....................................................................................................................... 31
2.5.1.4
Individual Outcomes............................................................................................... 32
2.5.2 Learning Environment........................................................................................................ 32
2.5.2.1
D esocializing............................................................................................................32
2.5.2.2
Argumentation......................................................................................................... 32
2.5.2.3
E quity....................................................................................................................... 33
2.5.2.4
Policy-oriented learning........................................................................................ 33
2.5.3
Organization........................................................................................................................ 34
2.5.3.1
Information dissemination..................................................................................... 34
2.5.3.2
Information interpretation...................................................................................... 34
2.5.3.3
Organizational memory..........................................................................................34
35
2.5.3.4
Organizational outcom es.................................................
2.5.4 Research framework............................................................................................................35
2.5.5 Nature o f the relationship.................................................................................................. 36
ix
2.6
2.5.6 Summary...................................................................................................................36
Conclusion...................................................................................................................... 36
3 : R e s e a r c h D e s i g n ...............................................................................................................................38
Research approach
..............................................................................................38
3.1.1 Comparative case study............................................................................................ 38
3.2
Research methods............................................
41
3.2.1 Document review...................................................................................................... 41
3.2.2 Participant observation.............................................................................................42
3.2.3 Interviews................................................................................................................. 43
3.3
Analysis........................................................................................................................... 44
3.3.1 Parameters................................................................................................................ 45
3.3.2 Trustworthiness........................................................................................................ 46
3.4
Conclusion...................................................................................................................... 47
Ch apter
3.1
4: T h e W u s k w a t i m G e n e r a t i o n S t a t i o n a n d T r a n s m i s s i o n L i n e s P r o j e c t 48
The project...................................................................................................................... 48
The context.......................................................................................................................50
4.2.1 Grand Rapids Dam..................................................................................................51
4.2.2 Churchill River Diversion........................................................................................ 52
4.2.3 History of environmental assessment in Manitoba.................................................. 54
Environmental assessment process................................................................................ 56
Definitive aspects: Establishing shared meaning..........................................................59
4.4.1 Desocializing: How was the public engaged in theassessment process?.............59
4.4.2 Participatory: Did individuals contribute to the scope of the assessment?............ 61
4.4.3 Discussion................................................................................................................ 67
Designative aspects: Establishing truth.......................................................................... 68
4.5.1 Situated: Were participants able to access assessment information in a format that
suited their needs?.................................................................................................................68
4.5.1.1 Media............................................................................................................. 68
4.5.1.2 The public registry......................................................................................... 72
4.5.1.3 Interrogatory process..................................................................................... 74
4.5.1.4 Hearings......................................................................................................... 77
4.5.1.5 Accuracy and completeness...........................................................................79
4.5.
Argumentation: Did the EA include evidence from different points of view?
80
4.5.3 Discussion.................................................................................................................85
Evaluative aspects: Normative ideas.............................................................................. 86
4.6.1 Critical: Did the timing of the review allow participants to consider assessment
information?.......................................................................................................................... 86
4.6.2 Equity: Do participants believe that assessment activities wereequitable?...........91
4.6.3 Discussion................................................................................................................ 94
Advocative aspects: Subjective components................................................................95
4.7.1 Individual outcomes: What instrumental and communicative learning outcomes are
attributed to the EA?..............................................................................................................95
4.7.2
Policy-oriented learning: Did the EA contribute to policy-oriented learning?
101
4.7.3 Discussion...............................................................................................................104
Conclusion.....................................................................................................................104
Ch apter
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
Chapter 5: The Snap Lake D iamonds Pro jec t ........................................................................107

5.1
Developing the context............................................................................................................ 107
5.2
History o f environmental assessment in the Northwest Territories..............................109
5.2.1
EA o f the BHP NWT diamond project.........................................................................109
5.2.2
EA o f the Diavik Diamonds Mines Inc project...........................................................110
5.3
Environmental assessment processes.....................................................................................113
5.4
Definitive aspects: Establishing shared meaning...............................................................117
5.4.1 Desocializing: How was the public engaged in the assessment process?..............117
5.4.2 Participatory: Did individuals contribute to the scope o f the assessment?........... 118
5.4.3 D iscussion .......................................................................................................................... 121
5.5
Designative aspects: Establishing truth................................................................................. 121
5.5.1
Situated: Were participants able to access assessment information in a format that
suited their needs?...........................................................................................................................121
5.5.1.1
M edia....................................................................................................................... 121
5.5.1.2
The public registry.................................................................................................125
5.5.1.3
Information requests............................................................................................. 126
5.5.1.4
Technical session s.................................................................................................128
5.5.1.5
Hearings...................................................................................................................129
5.5.1.6
Accuracy and completeness.................................................................................131
5.5.2
Argumentation: Did the EA include evidence from different points o f view?... 132
5.5.3 D iscussion .......................................................................................................................... 134
5.6
Evaluative aspects: Normative ideas......................................................................................134
5.6.1
Critical: Did the timing o f the review allow participants to consider assessment
information?..................................................................................................................................... 134
5.6.2 Equity: Do participants believe that assessment activities were equitable?......... 139
5.6.3 D iscussion .......................................................................................................................... 141
5.7
Advocative aspects: Subjective com ponents......................................................................142
5.7.1
Individual outcomes: What instrumental and communicative learning outcomes are
attributed to the EA?....................................................................................................................... 142
5.7.2 Policy-oriented learning: Did the EA contribute to policy-oriented learning?... 145
5.7.3 D iscussion.......................................................................................................................... 146
5.8
Conclusion.................................................................................................................................. 147
Chapter 6: Organizational Lea r n in g .......................................................................................149
6.1
Organizations............................................................................................................................. 149
6.1.1 Information distribution....................................................................................................153
6.1.2 Information interpretation: What methods do organizations use to interpret
learning?............................................................................................................................................157
6.1.3
Organizational memory: How do organizations record learning outcomes for future
use?.....................................................................................................................................................160
6.1.4 What organizational learning outcomes are associated with participation in EA? 162
6.1.5 D iscussion.......................................................................................................................... 167
6.2
Nature o f the Relationship...................................................................................................... 169
6.2.1 Learning Events: Is there a relationship between EA and learning?.......................169
6.2.2 Qualities: What aspects o f the assessment were most conducive to learning?... 171
6.3
Learning and Sustainable Development................................................................................173
6.4
A Tale o f Two Cases.................................................................................................................176
6.5
Conclusion..................................................................................................................................181
xi
7: C o n c l u s i o n s .................................................................................................... 184
Theoretical Contributions........................................................................................... 184
Research Findings....................................................................................................... 186
7.2.1 What elements of individual, the learning environment, and the organization
contribute to organizational learning?.............................................................................. 188
7.2.2 What is the nature of the relationship between EA and learning?........................ 189
7.2.3 How does learning contribute to sustainable development?................................. 189
Modifications to EA Processes................................................................................... 190
Remembering the Context........................................................................................... 193
Future Research Directions......................................................................................... 193
Conclusion.................................................................................................................. 195
Chapter
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
A p p e n d ix 1: I n t e r v ie w q u e s t i o n s ...................................................................................... 196
A p p e n d ix 2: D o c u m e n t a t io n a c c e s s e d f r o m p u b l ic r e g is t r ie s ............................................198
R e f e r e n c e s ..........................................................................................................................................................2 0 0
xii
LIST OF TABLES
Number
Page
Table 2.1: Speech acts, and means for redemption developed in the theory of
argumentation.................................................................................................8
Table 2.2: Specifications for adopting sustainability as a decision-making criterion
18
Table 2.3: Categories of learning outcomes found in E A ........................................23
Table 2.4: Characteristics and results of single- and double- loop learning............. 26
Table 2.5: General research template........................................................................29
Table 2.6: Summary of criteria for considering learning through EA and operational
definitions......................................................................................................30
Table 2.7: Theoretical framework for understanding organizational learning through
EA................................................................................................................. 35
Table 3.1: On-going EAs considered as potential cases studies for this research.... 40
Table 3.2: Public registries associated with case studies......................................... 42
Table 4.1: Provincial hearings to facilitate public involvement in EA between 1994
and 2004........................................................................................................56
Table 4.2: Timeline of events in the review of the Wuskwatim generation station and
transmission lines projects............................................................................58
Table 4.3: Organizations involved in the hearings................................................... 60
Table 4.4: Submissions regarding the scope of the assessment................................62
Table 4.5: Description of material available on the public registries....................... 74
Table 4.6: Funding awarded through the participant assistant program ..................81
Table 4.7: Instrumental and communicative learning associated with the EA of the
Wuskwatim projects......................................................................................97
Table 5.1: Organizations involved in the BHP hearings.........................................I l l
Table 5.2: Timeline of events in the review of the Snap Lake diamonds project... 116
Table 5.3: Organizations involved as interveners or directly affected parties in the EA
of the Snap Lake project.............................................................................118
Table 5.4: Instrumental and communicative learning outcomes associated with the
EA of the Snap Lake project....................................................................... 143
Table 6.1: Elements that distinguish policy actors..................................................152
Table 6.2: Methods for sharing information identified by research participants.... 154
Table 6.3: Methods for developing shared meaning from experience identified by
research participants....................................................................................158
Table 6.4: Components of organizational memory identified by research participants
161
Table 6.5: Organizational learning outcomes associated with participation in EA.
.....................................................................................................................164
Table 6.6: Categories of learning outcomes associated with participation in the
Wuskwatim projects and the Snap Lake project.........................................180
Table 7.1: Recommendations to strengthen the EA processes................................191
xiii
LIST OF FIGURES
Number
Page
Figure 3.1: Affiliation of research participants...................................................... 44
Figure 4.1: Location of the Wuskwatim generation station...................................49
Figure 4.1: Action taken by PAT on comments received regarding the EIS guidelines
.................................................................................................................... 63
Figure 4.3: Number of topics addressed by media coverage o f the Wuskwatim
projects......................................................................................................70
Figure 4.4: Coverage of the Wuskwatim Projects by media source .................... 71
Figure 5.1: Location of the Snap Lake diamond................................................. 108
Figure 5.2: Number of topics addressed by media coverage of the Snap Lake
project...................................................................................................... 123
Figure 5.3: Coverage of the Snap Lake project by media source........................ 124
xiv
LIST OF ACRONYMS
CARC
Canadian Arctic Resources Committee
CEA
Cumulative effects assessment
CEAA
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act
CEC
Clean Environment Commission
DDMI
Diavik Diamonds Mines Inc
DFO
Department o f Fisheries and Oceans
EA
Environmental assessment
EIS
Environmental impact statement
INAC
Indian Affairs and Northern Development Canada
IRs
Interrogatories
ISS
Ideal speech situation
MVEIRB
Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board
MVRMA
Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act
NCN
Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation
NGO
Non-governmental organization
NRCan
Natural Resources Canada
PAT
Project administration team (Manitoba)
PUB
Public Utilities Board (Manitoba)
RA
Responsible Authorities
WKSS
West Kitikmeot Slave Society
Chapter
FRAMING THE RESEARCH
In this research, I explore the linkages among sustainable development, environmental

assessment (EA), public participation, and learning. EA is a policy tool utilized by governments
to consider the environmental, social and economic sustainability of projects (Connelly & Smith,
1999).
The systematic consideration of impacts of development initiatives provides the impetus for the
inclusion of public involvement in EA. EA has historically been implemented as a form of
interactive policy making, defined as political practices that involve consultation, negotiation
and/or deliberation between government, associations from civil society and individual citizens
(Akkerman, Hajer, & Grin, 2004, p. 83). As such, public participation has been a component of
EA since the process was introduced (Petts, 1999; Sinclair & Diduck, in press; Sinclair &
Fitzpatrick, 2002; Wood, 1995).
The utility of public participation in EA decision making is well established in assessment
literature (Diduck, 2004; Susskind & Cruikshank, 1987; Webler, Kastenholz, & Renn, 1995).
From a societal perspective, public participation can provide for increased knowledge of the
potential complex environmental, social and economic impacts of a project (Parenteau, 1988;
Usher, 2000; Webler & Renn, 1995); ensure the project meets the needs of the public in terms of
both purpose and design (Forester, 1989), therefore assigning a sense of legitimacy to the project
and process; and, provide a venue for conflict resolution among stakeholders (Diduck, 1999). In
these ways, public participation serves to increase the effectiveness of EA (Mitchell, 2002).
Organizations have the incentive to participate in EA as it provides a forum for idea advocacy
(Stone, 2000); allows for the documentation of gaps in government frameworks; and, allows for
public vetting of the causal reasons for these gaps (Jenkins-Smith & Sabatier, 1993a). On an
individual basis, public participation allows for personal engagement in civil society, may serve
to empower participants (Amstein, 1969; Rocha, 1997); and can serve as a venue for learning
(Diduck & Sinclair, 1997a, 1997b; Fitzpatrick & Sinclair, 2003; Palerm, 2000; Webler, 1995).
Of particular interest to this research is the nature of learning arising from participation in an
EA.
Learning is an important, yet usually implicit, component of public involvement in EA (Diduck
& Sinclair, 1997a; Sinclair & Diduck, 1995). Information programs in EA normally instruct
publics on how to participate in the process and provide information about the complex issues
related to a specific project. EA allows for the acquisition of knowledge or skills; learning is the
process through which this knowledge is acquired, incorporated into ones meaning schemes,
and applied in future activities (Dewey, 1916). Although EA does not require the design or
implementation of educational programs, the experience, skill and knowledge provided for
through this forum allows for learning, and in turn, may facilitate broad scale change.
Regardless of specific behavioural changes, learning is both a requisite and an outcome of public
participation.
Public participation is central to EA, an important tool of sustainable development. Education,
in turn, is necessary to ensure that EA is successful and that participants benefit from the process
by learning about ideas central to sustainable development.
1.1
Research problem
As multiple publics participate in EA, learning can occur at individual, organizational and policy
scales. At an individual level, learning includes both technical and communicative
competencies. The latter may ultimately be manifest through behavioural change (e.g. Mezirow,
1991). On an organizational level, learning outcomes can contribute to improved performance, a
restructuring of organizational values, or an increased capacity to achieve either of the above
changes (Argyris & Schon, 1996). Finally, learning is associated with long-term policy change.
Learning frameworks identify various policy actors whose experience results in instrumental and
programming lessons or outcomes that are manifest in governmental policy change (e.g.
Bennett & Howlett, 1992; Heclo, 1974).
When exploring opportunities to facilitate learning by participants in environmental-based
programming, research draws on educational theories that specialize in research on learning.
The application of adult educational theory to environmental studies is emerging through
research that
sees policy change as a result of learning (Heclo, 1974; Jenkins-Smith & Sabatier,
1993a, 1993b; Sabater & Jenkins-Smith, 1993; Sabatier, 1993) and views
institutional learning as important to improving environmental policy (Hessing &
Howlett, 1997; Hoberg, 2001; Howlett, 2001; Lertzman, Rayner, & Wilson, 1996),
hypothesizes about the utility of transformative learning as a model for promoting

environmentally responsible behaviour (Finger and Asun, Mcdonald, Cerveo &
Courtenay (1999));uses empirically-tested frameworks to analyze public
participation using criteria inclusive of considerations of social learning (Webler et
al. (1995) and Palerm (2000)),
reviews opportunities for individual learning through participation in EA (Diduck,

1999,2001; Diduck & Sinclair, 1997a, 1997b; Sinclair & Diduck, 1995,2000,
2001), and
considers the implications of social learning through interactive policy-making

approaches to resource management (Blann, Light, & Musumeci, 2003; Diduck,
2004).
My research examines opportunities for organizational learning that emerge through

participation in EA. If education is important to EA, a tool associated with sustainability, what
qualities of the process can be linked to the process of organizational learning?
1.2
Research objectives
The central question for this research was Can organizations learn through participation in
environmental assessment? This central question leads to several research objectives:
identify the elements of the participating individuals, the learning environment, and the
organization that contribute to organizational learning,
document the nature of the relationship between EA and learning, and
provide a preliminary analysis of how EA-related learning contributes to sustainable

development.
1.3
Significance of the research
This research was designed to contribute to the theoretical and empirical discussions about
learning. On a broad scale, this research will contribute to the pragmatic application of the
theory of communicative action, thereby addressing the criticism that this theory is a normative
theory of social interaction not based on observation (Alexander, 1996).
The research was designed to be interdisciplinary (Rossini & Porter, 1981). The development of
the theoretical framework drew upon research focused on learning from a variety of disciplines,
including geography, education, political science, planning and management studies. The
theoretical framework envisions learning as a process, consistent with the educational literature.
In this inception, learning includes not only specific outcomes, or lessons, but also the
cognitive, socially constructed process through which learning occurs. Learning becomes both a
noun and a verb.
Transformative learning, an educational focus of inquiry that puts a premium on promoting
change through education, serves as the basis of my understanding of learning. Within this
context, the theoretical framework is designed to advance linkages between the individual, the
traditional focus of transformative learning, and broader social change. This is achieved through
including consideration of organizational learning, in the context of communicative action
theory. Originality is apparent through development of a model of organizational learning with
application to EA, inclusive of the cognitive aspects of learning theory.
This research also contributes to discussion surrounding the relationship among EA, learning
and sustainable development. Empirically, the study adds data surrounding public participation
in two EAs.
1.4
Structure of the dissertation
This dissertation has seven chapters. Chapter 2 explores the relevance of communicative action
theory for addressing the research objectives. Communicative planning, discursive democracy,
and transformative learning are three disciplinary applications of this theory that support the
development of a theoretical framework for considering organizational learning through EA.
Chapter 3 outlines the approach to this research, and describes specific methods used to address
the research objectives.
4
The first case study, the EA of the Wuskwatim generation and transmission projects (hereafter
the Wuskwatim projects) in Manitoba is introduced in Chapter 4. This chapter details the case
history, and continues with a discussion of the opportunities for learning arising from
participation in this project. This portion of the analysis includes consideration of criteria related
to the individual (participatory, situated, critical and individual outcomes) and the learning
environment (inclusiveness, argumentation, equity and policy-oriented learning).
Chapter 5 introduces the second case study, the EA of the De Beers Canada Mining Inc Snap
Lake Diamonds Project (hereafter Snap Lake project) in the Northwest Territories. As in the
previous chapter, this chapter details the case history, and continues with a discussion of the
opportunities for learning arising from participation in this project. The analysis includes
consideration of criteria related to the individual (participatory, situated, critical and individual
outcomes), and the learning environment (desocializing, argumentation, equity and policy
oriented learning).
Chapter 6 provides a discussion of the structures in participant organizations that channel
individual learning outcomes into organizational action. What organizational learning outcomes
are associated with EA? To complement this discussion, Chapter 6 explores how participants
envision the relationship between EA and learning. These components are then used in a
preliminary analysis of the contribution of learning to the overarching goal of sustainable
development.
Chapter 7 presents the findings and implications, as they relate to gaps in the literature.
Conclusions and recommendations for assessment practice, as derived from this analysis, are
also provided, as well as opportunities for further research. Furthermore, an overall assessment
of the strengths and weaknesses of the research is provided.
Chapter
SETTING THE CONTEXT
In this chapter, I introduce the literature surrounding sustainable development, EA, public
participation, and learning. Communicative action serves as the theoretical construct through
which this discussion is developed. The dialogic, consensus basis of communicative action is
applied in political science through discursive democracy, planning through communicative
planning, and education through transformative learning.
A discussion of current thinking surrounding sustainable development, EA and public
participation frames this research within the resource management area of geographical study.
As noted previously, education and learning contribute not only to the implementation of
interactive policy making, but also to the broader goals of sustainable development. As such,
learning is an important, yet often implicit, component of EA.
This discourse serves as a foundation for research directed at exploring opportunities for
organizational learning through an EA. To this end, a theoretical framework for examining
organizational learning is developed and explained in this chapter.
2.1
Communicative action
Communicative action serves as one lens through which to consider modem social relations.
Humans use rational processes to make sense of the world (Habermas, 1984, chap. 2, 1987).
Changes in modernizing western society [are a result of] processes of rationalization - or the
improvement and inventions of technique and skills we use to make sense of the world
(Webler, 1995, p.40). Rationality, however, as envisioned by Habermas, consists of three
contrary forces: instrumental-technical, moral, and aesthetic. Instrumental-technical rationality
is a positivistic approach, based on science, and associated with the natural world and economic
systems. Moral rationality focuses on values and norms, and is associated with the law and
ethics. Aesthetic rationality, associated with art and art criticism, relies on emotive experiences.
According to Habermas (1984,1987), in the process of modernization, instrumental-technical

rationality is exerting an ever-increasing influence on all lifeworld activities1, to the detriment of
moral and aesthetic processes of reasoning. This colonization is a pathology of modernization.
Although instrumental-technical rationality has utility in activities for which strategic reasoning
is required, for example natural science and technology, when this form of reasoning is extended
to all lifeworld activities, communication pathologies can arise (Habermas, 1984). When the
underlying objectives and processes of reasoning are inconsistent among participants, language
becomes a vehicle of social distortion.
To resolve this proclivity, Habermas proposes a descriptive and prescriptive theory of
modernization. As the malady is the extension of reductionist scientific reasoning to venues
related to lifeworld activities, resolution lies with an alternative practice. Communicative
rationality, then, is the process by which lifeworld events are negotiated.
Communicative rationality relies on language as the means through which individuals engage in,
and contribute to, the social world. Habermas postulates that the underlying aim of every speech
act is to develop mutual understanding. "In everyday life, however, no one would enter into
moral argumentation if he did not start from the strong presupposition that a grounded consensus
could in principle be achieved among those involved(Habermas, 1984, p. 19). In order to
achieve this understanding, participants of discourse rely on a series of rules through which to
negotiate discourse based upon the theory of argumentation. In this way, communicative
rationality sets Out a process through which participants critically explore assertions of validity.
As illustrated in Table 2.1, Habermas (1984, p. 23) classifies four types of speech acts found in
dialogue (communicative, constantive, regulative, representative). Implicit in each speech act is
a claim to validity, and, in turn, a means of establishing the statements legitimacy. A speaker
makes an implicit claim, verified or redeemed, through the course of the dialogue. The
soundness of a sentence is debated, based on any one or more of four validity claims
(comprehensibility, truth, normative right, and authenticity). Communicative competence, then,
is the ability to use language (or precisely speech acts) to create understanding and agreement
1 The lifeworld involves the non-rational aspects of human interaction, including the social sphere, where
meaning and significance are developed through human interaction. This category is contrasted with
systems, components of human interaction that take a more functional (rather than communicative)
approach, such as areas related to economics, and power.
(Webler, 1995, p.44). It is through this process of communicative rationality that individuals
and groups negotiate or modify the existing lifeworld processes (Habermas, 1984, p.45).
Table 2.1: Speech acts, and means for redemption developed in the theory of
argumentation (Habermas, 1984; Webler, 1995)
SPEECH ACT
(ASSERTION)
VALIDITY CLAIM
(APPEAL IN
STATEMENT)
DISCOURSE
(MEANS OF
REDEMPTION)
EXAMPLE OF
STATEMENT (TAKEN
FROM WEBLER 1995)
Communicative/
Definitive
Comprehensibility:
Is the statement
linguistically proper?
Explicative:
Involving language,
grammar, definitions,
and terms
A landfill is a site where

trash is buried in a
sanitary manner.
Constantive/
Designative
Truth:
Is this a correct
depiction of affairs?
Theoretical:
Involving the
objectified nature of
society
The landfill over in

Greenfield Township
occupies a space of 46
acres.
Regulative/
Evaluative
Normality Right:
Does the statement
present a legitimate
appeal?
Practical:
Involving social
needs
Operation of the landfill

should be overseen by a
committee of elected
officials.
Authentic:
Is the speaker sincere?
Therapeutic:
Involving subjectivity
I am concerned that the

noise from the landfill
will be unbearable.
1Representative/
Advocative
Agreement and understanding, however, must be non-coercive, and therefore are reliant on an
ideal speech situation (ISS). The ISS is based on four suppositions about discourse participants:
all participants must have an equal chance to engage in speech acts;
all participants must have an equal chance to question, and respond to,
validity claims;
all participants must have an equal opportunity to engage in regulative
dialogue, that
which is evaluated based on its trustworthiness; and,
all participants must have an equal opportunity to engage in representative dialogue, that
which is judged based on the sincerity of the speaker.
If the suppositions of communicative rationality are met, then understanding established through
dialogue is rational.
8
In modem, pluralistic societies, which lack unifying worldviews and uniform codes of ethics,
political and legal institutions serve as important vehicles to regulate interpersonal relations
(Habermas, 1999). In conceptualizing an ISS, Habermas proposes to reconstruct a public realm
more sensitive to the lifeworld. As individual consciousness is socially constructed through
dialogue with others, implementing the ISS in the public realm serves to reestablish
communicative rationality. The idea of the public sphere in Habermas sense is a conceptual
resource. It designates a theatre in modem societies in which participation is enacted through
the medium of talk (Fraser, 1994, p.75). Open dialogue is the vehicle through which
emancipation from the colonizing forces of the lifeworld is possible (Morrow & Torres, 2002).
[I]t is through our communicative efforts that cultures and structures are formed and
transformed (Healey, 1997, p.53). The burden of legitimizing the political and legal structures
of governance is carried through the democratic process. As such, relevance of communicative
action to areas related to democracy is clear (see section 2.1.1).
No theory of social interaction is undisputed. In the theoretical literature there is a strong
counterargument to the tenets of communicative action built on the work of Foucault. Although
supportive of the issue of rationalization as a malady of society, scholars supporting this school
of thought emphasis the dynamics of power relations existing in social interactions. Whereas
Habermas sees the neutralization of power issues as a procedural requirement of democratic
engagement, Foucault (1988) advises that institutions of governance are imbued with systems
that perpetuate power differentials. Rather than neutralize these tendencies, Foucault suggests
that resistance to and straggle against these conditions in a case-by-case basis is freedom in
action. Thus, a political system that minimizes conflict, as that promoted by Habermas,
simultaneously restricts the rights and privileges of citizens.
This tension between Habermas and Foucault has been labeled as idealist versus realist,
universal versus relative, procedural versus substantive and consensus versus
conflict (Flyvberg 1998). While a Foucauldian perspective has utility for natural resource
management, particularly as it is applied through the framework of political ecology, with a
focus on learning through engagement in the democratic exercise of EA, communicative action
has been adopted as the theoretical construct of this dissertation.
Notwithstanding my support of communicative action, it is important to acknowledge that
various criticisms have been leveled at the theory. In light of the context of this research 9
understanding the linkages among sustainable development, EA, public participation, and
learning - a discussion of these concerns should begin with how communicative action deals
with the relationship between humans and the ecological environment.
Concerns surround the applicability of communicative action to nature. Ecocentric scholars
such as Skollerhom (1998) and Eckersley (1992) note that communicative action is an
anthropocentric framework. Habermas believes that the dominant human relationship with
nature is characterized by instrumental-technical rationalization (Barry, 1996). Humans have
needs that they must satisfy through interactions with the natural world; that needs are negotiated
through instrumental-technical rational process is an appropriate application of this reasoning.
This instrumental attitude to nature is the price of a modem social world. In developing these
categories, a natural disjuncture between the natural and social worlds emerges (Barry 1999); the
environment serves a utilitarian function, not appreciated for its own significance. Although
colonization of the lifeworld by instrumental-technology is a malady, this relationship between
humans and nature is both innate and expected.
If this dominance relationship is accepted, non-human entities, both biological and physical, are
exempt from participation on the grounds that they are not communicatively competent.
Dryzeks (1990b) suggested remedy to this malady, namely the appointment of a representative
of non-communicative interests, requires the development of institutional structures envisioned
by Eckersley (1992) that recognize the autonomy (and subsequent rights of) a range of entities
beyond human species (Dobson, 1996). However, the assignment of proxy to individuals,
regardless of the nature of the institutions, requires that nature is considered and defended by
humans. Thus, human-nature interactions are negotiated through an anthropocentric perspective
in communicative action.
Perhaps the greatest censure relates to the basic assumption of communicative action, namely
that the purpose of dialogue is to achieve what Habermas cites as consensus, namely mutually
agreed understanding. Scholars object to this invocation on a multitude of grounds, including
the conviction that truth and consensus are necessarily linked, in that tmth cannot be established
without the presence of consensus (Hillier, 2003). Moreover, consensus is problematic in the
reality of multicultural environments (Healey, 1997; Pettit, 2001), and, often participants cannot
abandon political goals to engage in the listening and compromising required for consensus
10
(McGuirk, 2001). Also, rationality, particularly that centred in morality and aesthetics, is
individually and culturally subjective (Jaeger, Renn, Rosa, & Webler, 2001).
As observed by Innes (2004), Habermas understanding of consensus is not grounded in
pragmatic research which centres on conflict resolution, but is an ideal through which to guide
social theory. [Cjommunicative rationality, like scientific method, is an ideal type. It is never
fully achieved even in the most rigorous practice (Innes, 2004, p.10). Recognizing that
consensus is an archetype that arises from the faultless implementation of the ISS, one that can
never truly be achieved, consensus serves a broader function in democratic exercise.
Practitioners resolve the theoretical- empirical divide by extending the ideal of consensus
beyond a project-by-project basis. "At the micro-level, that is, in any single application of
participation, social conflict will not be resolved, nor will the functionality of society be
determined. Those macro-level outcomes emerge out of infinite numbers of local experiences"
(Renn, Webler, & Wiedemann, 1995, p.9). On a pragmatic level, consensus serves as a long
term, localized goal. The form and content... is therefore a terrain of multi dimensional power
struggle between different social groups, carrying different structuring dimensions into the arena
of policy development and implementation. The outcome of these struggles is inherently locally
distinctive, depending on the mix of key players and the viewpoints they bring into play
(Healey, 1997, p.92).
Empirical support for this function is found in recent research exploring
the role of planning exercises in two rural communities in British Columbia, Canada. Hanna
(2005,38) observes that local planning activities can provide an opportunity for consensus to
develop as community members explored not only their own individual preferences but also
those of others. To contribute to the development of community consensus, public
participation should include discussion of long-term social expectations and the development of
acceptable guidelines for interaction.
Beyond discussions related to consensus, communicative action also disadvantages those who
are not communicatively competent. Webler (1995) observes that while the purpose of the ISS
includes fairness in dialogue, this fairness is tempered by an assumption of competence;
individuals must be adept at constructing valid arguments if they are to participate. Again,
redress lies in the acknowledgement that the ISS is an ideal, a reality that should be the ultimate
goal of discourse.
11
Reproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Finally, Habermas has been criticized as providing for what is characterized as a normative
theory of social interaction that is neither based on observations nor provides pragmatic
guidance for the subjugated to achieve emancipation (E. Alexander, 1996). Presumably as an
individual engaged in society, Habermas himself possesses a degree of authority on the nature of
social interaction. This experience is tempered through continuous dialogue with supporters and
detractors alike. As noted by Passerin dEntreves (1997), Habermas himself is employed in
critical dialogue about communicative action; in doing so he is able to reflect (and hence revise)
the tenets of this theory, while working to achieve a consensus about the utility of
communicative action as a social theory.
Furthermore, as researchers investigate issues through the lens of communicative action,
methodological and empirical frameworks for applying this theory are constructed (see for
example Parkins (1996) discussion of new social movements). Communicative action becomes
pragmatic through methodologies developed in discipline specific contexts. Two disciplines
with literature grounded in communicative action with particular relevance to research centred
on EA are political science and planning.
2.1.1
Deliberative democracy
As communicative action emphasizes the public sphere as a means of negotiating and regulating
social relations, the theory has direct application in political science. As patterns of civic
engagement change, it becomes important to examine how citizens are encouraged to negotiate
democracy, particularly as government is more actively seeking public participation (Akkerman,
Hajer, & Grin, 2004). Communicative action provides an alternative democratic model, one
more discursive and educational in focus, oriented to public interests and in need of active
citizens (Dryzek, 1990a). Numerous scholars, including Benhabib (1982, 1996), Diyzek (1987,
1990a), and Enslin, Pendlebury & Tjiattas (2001), have promoted deliberative democracy, a
model founded on the tenets of communicative action. Deliberative democracy addresses
criticisms of the role of rationality in governance by restricting rationality to a limited domain,
and dispensing with the requisite of objectivity in rationality (Dryzek, 1990a).
We turn to Habermas to leam more about civil society in order to construct an
adequate theoretical framework towards the achievement of a learning society that
encourages active citizenship, nurtures people-centred work and fosters public
spaces that engage a significant minority of citizens in deliberative processes
committed to the common weal (Welton, 2001, p,20).
12
In line with the interactive policy-making focus of EA, deliberative democracy encourages
interaction among a broad range of policy actors (Enslin et al., 2001). Oriented to the needs and
interests of participants, this approach promotes long-term dialogue among participants.
Contemporary scholars are moving towards an approach to democracy that is based on
informational, argumentative, reflective and social aspect of deliberation (Dryzek & List, 2003,
p.27), grounded in communicative action.
In practical terms, then, deliberative democracy should emphasize (Dryzek, 1990a, p.41):
sound argumentation,
unlimited participation,
equal participation, which includes an equal right to question and debate the rules of
discourse, the recognized constraint of dialogue as a means of communication, and
common rules governing interaction (Benhabib, 1996), and,
communicative competence of participants.
A discursive design is a social institution around which the expectations of a number of actors
converge (Enslin et al., 2001, p.21). Oriented to the needs and interests of participants, the
institutional framework promotes long-term dialogue between participants.
2.1.2
Communicative planning
Planning is concerned with why regions are important to social, economic and environmental
policy, and how political communities may organize to improve the quality of their place
(Healey, 1997, p. xi). To this end, planning serves as a pragmatic vehicle through which
systems of governance, the affairs of political communities, are negotiated. Planning, then, is a
point of intersection between governments and people.
Forester (1989,1999) details the significance of communicative action for planning.
Communicative action provides a theoretical background that contributes to the development of
a framework of social research that neither ignores normative problems nor shunts aside
interpretive and phenomenological issues, (Forester, 1989, p.4). This framework includes
consideration of the political analysis of rationality. On a pragmatic basis, communicative
action allows planners to link practice directly to the exercise of influence and power. When
applied to planning, communicative action serves to encourage discourse, while continuing to
13
seek the fruition of a tangible goal. Communicative planning provides for a shift from decisions
to interaction as the focus (D. Alexander, 1999). Planning becomes a process of collective
reasoning (Healey, 1997). Consensus, the ultimate goal of collective reasoning, is a means of
coping with uncertainty and rapid change in society (Innes & Booher, 1999).
As with the ISS, communicative planning is concerned with public engagement. Paramount to
this concern is the nature of information. Access to information serves as a means of
determining the success of a planning initiative (Hanna, 2000). Although the traditional mark of
a successful consultation involves the number of participants, consideration of the nature of
information and the nature of the dialogue complements this monochromatic evaluation. Even
the most well developed participation program cannot ensure that it will significantly influence a
decision (Hanna, 2000, p.400). Participation can be subject to co-option, and that type of
participation is not congruous to collaborative decision making. Ensuring information is
considered and debated serves to minimize this co-option.
One criticism of communicative planning again centres on implementation. In this instance,
however, the critique rests on the limitations of planning, as governed by the current legislative
framework. Critics note that collaborative decision making is not often achievable within
planning, a profession that works with the institutionalized power structure of government
(Ploger, 2001). When power, as embodied through the ability to implement decisions, is
centralized with politicians and planning officials, public participants of the planning initiative
are at a disadvantage. Without changes to the hard infrastructure - for example modified legal
frameworks, procedures, resources, - current efforts to develop the soft infrastructure relationship building, social collaboration, deliberation - undermine planning initiatives
(McGuirk, 2001).
However, developed concomitantly with a move towards discursive democracy, communicative
planning serves as a pragmatic application of communicative action in governance.
2.1.3
Summary
Communicative action and literature regarding the implementation of this theory in the public
realm frame this research. This theory promotes dialogue as a means through which humanity
must reassert control over the lifeworld, and the components that guide moral action, including
politics and law. Habermas introduces a communicative rationality, a process through which to
14
negotiate discourse centred on lifeworld activities. As applied in discursive democracy and

communicative planning, broader participation in activities concerning governance and norms is
encouraged. This participation, however, should be framed around the creation of an ISS.
Because of this focus on democratic principles, communicative action can guide a discussion of
sustainable development. As noted by Barry (1999), democracy is a logical area for
sustainability as both require citizens to fulfill duties, and are premised on protection of citizens
rights. Communicative action encourages more active and interactive venues through which
these rights are negotiated, and duties fulfilled. Deliberative democracy provides a model for
engagement favorable to sustainable development (Dryzek, 1990a; Ward, Norval, Landman, &
Pretty, 2003).
2.2
Sustainable development
Notwithstanding that sustainable development has been adopted as a statement for governance
strategies (Mitchell, 2002), the ambiguity of this concept is well noted (see for example
Connelly & Smith (1999), Mebratu (1998), Pezzoli (1997) & Tansey (2002)). The colloquial
definition, or mantra, is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising
the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (WCED, 1987,43). While a rich
history of activities contributed to the construction of this statement, interpretations of this
definition as compiled by Pezzoli (1997), and related literature, address a broad range of
concerns. Drawing on a political ecological perspective, definitions of sustainable development
provided by Pezzoli (1997) are grouped according to the partisan loci of concern. Mebratu
(1998) provides another approach, in which conceptualizations of sustainable development are
classified by the position of the policy actors. Through this analysis, her survey empirically
supports the position that the concept [of sustainable development] is, to a large extent,
influenced by the fundamental tenants of the specific group or organization (Mebratu, 1998,
p.518). In this way, understanding the constituent representations of groups is important for
understanding conceptualizations of sustainable development.
Recognizing the wealth of interpretations regarding the meaning and consequent purpose of
sustainable development, for the purpose of this research, understanding of this term is
established within the theoretical construct of communicative action. Consistent with the
aforementioned discussion of an instrumental-technical relationship between humans and the
15
environment, sustainable development is conceptualized within an anthropocentric perspective.

To this end, sustainability addresses a set of human relations aimed at greening existing patterns
of production, consumption and lifestyles for long term durability; sustainable development,
meaning continuously viable and productive economic exchange, is a subset of this vision
(Barry, 1996).
Returning to the WCED definition provides more direction on sustainable development. As
noted by Mitchell (2002), two key concepts are associated with sustainable development, needs,
or the requirements ascribed to the worlds poor and Imitations, the technological and
organizational capacity to satisfy current and future needs. This focus on needs has a specific
affinity to communicative action. According to Haland (1999, p.49), the Commission states,
'our perceived needs are socially and culturally determined, but it nevertheless assumes that the
need for equality and for a 'dominance free dialogue (Habermas) is general.' In this way,
sustainable development allows for communicative interaction between major collective actors
of a social movement, administrative and economic kind, (O'Mahony & Skillington, 1996,
p.43).
Within the discursive framework, sustainable development has meaning and significance by
virtue of what speakers do [with this vision], i.e. what speech acts or actions they perform
[with respect to the vision], be that the act of referring, explaining, describing or condemning
(O'Mahony & Skillington, 1996, p.43). Sustainable development is concerned with a public and
ethical dimension of environmentally responsible behaviour, modification of production and
consumption activities to reflect these dimensions, and the continuity of productive economic
exchange.
Factors inhibiting discursiveness in sustainable development include the potential for democratic
overload by participants; situational ethics, whereby individuals are unable to go beyond their
own position; the inability of interest groups to consider interests outside identified mandates;
insufficient change in the social emphasis on economics; and an inequitable treatment of all
evidence whereby not all points of view are subject to similar degrees of scrutiny (O'Mahony &
Skillington, 1996).
The development of institutional structures that promote inter-actor dialogue on a long-term

basis, such as those promoted in discursive democracy, serves as a means through which these
16
hindrances can be overcome. To succeed, sustainable development must be both the product of
political choice and the stimulus for institutional transformation (Lee, 1998, p.96). EA is one
mechanism through which sustainable development is applied.
2.2,1
Environmental assessment
As noted in Chapter 1, EA is a proactive planning tool that allows developers, regulatory

authorities, scientists, and the public to identify, evaluate, and mitigate, where possible, the
potential changes to an environment from a proposed initiative before development is
undertaken (Connelly & Smith, 1999). If predicted impacts to the ecological, social, cultural and
economic environments are judged significant, the project may be deemed not justifiable, and
therefore not be allowed to proceed (Sadar, 1996), A comprehensive EA also weighs the
purposes of and alternatives to the development (Gibson 1990,2001). Hence, EA serves as a
method through which the implications for sustainable development - the ecological, social,
cultural and economic impacts - can be identified and weighed. To this end, as noted by Gibson
(2000), sustainable development is a reasonable and logical objective of EA. Furthermore, as
argued by Wilkins (2003), because EA provides a forum for negotiating social values through
public participation, it is crucial for achieving sustainable development.
The trend towards the adoption of sustainable development as a guiding principle of EA comes
with methodological difficulties. In implementing sustainable development, decision makers
must work within a multigenerational framework to wrestle with conflicting objectives and make
difficult tradeoffs. In this respect, evaluations of recent EAs suggest that while steps have been
take to ensure EA makes a positive contribution to sustainability, more efforts are needed
(Bruhn-Tysk & Eklund, 2002; Gibson, 2000).
Efforts to this end, however, have not always failed. In drawing together seven principles that
should guide the determination of the significance of environmental impacts based on
sustainability-based decision making (Table 2.2), Gibson (2002) observes that key process
elements necessary to implement this approach exist, to varying degrees, in EA processes in
different jurisdictions. Pulling them all together, consistently or at least compatibly, even just
in Canadian jurisdictions is a daunting but not unrealistic task (Gibson, 2002, p.38). More
broadly than these procedural steps, however, Gibson observes that EA can serve as a
mechanism through which relevant parties negotiate general principles in specific contexts.
17
As noted in Chapter 1, EA has traditionally included opportunities for public involvement (Petts,
1999; Sinclair & Diduck, in press). This type of interactive policy making, in addition to
allowing for dialogue about the specific project, promotes broader social discourse about
environmental, social and economic issues (Wilkins, 2003). As such, EA promotes social
discourse and learning directed towards sustainable development.
Table 2.2: Specifications for adopting sustainability as a decision-making criterion
(Gibson, 2002, chp.2).
I PRINCIPLE
[ Integrity
Sufficiency and
Opportunity
Efficiency
Equity
Democracy and
Civility
Precaution
Immediate and
Long Term
Integration
DEFINITION
Build human-ecological relations to maintain the integrity of biophysical
systems in order to maintain the irreplaceable life support functions on
which human well-being depends.
Ensure that everyone has enough for a decent life and that everyone has
opportunities to seek improvements in ways that do not compromise
future generations possibilities for sufficiency and opportunity.
Reduce overall material and energy demands and other stresses on socioecological sustainability.
Ensure that sufficiency and effective choices for all are pursued in ways
that reduce dangerous gaps in sufficiency and opportunity (and health,
security, social recreation, political influence, etc) between rich and poor.
Build capacity to apply sustainability principles through a better informed
and better integrated package of administration, market, customary and
decision making promise.
Respect uncertainty, avoid even poorly understood risks of serious or
irreversible damage to the foundations for sustainability, design for
surprise and manage for adaptation.
Apply all principles of sustainability at once, seeking mutually supportive
benefits.
Public involvement has a body of literature outside EA and resource management. As noted in
the first chapter, numerous research has explored interactive policy making in EA, and the
broader resource management sector (see for example Meredith, 1997; Petts, 1999; Sinclair &
Doelle, 2003). The need for public participation in EA decision making is well established both
in theoretical and applied assessment literature. In addition to improving the effectiveness of the
EA process, on a broader scale, public participation implements the principles of discursive
democracy, promoting active citizenship engaged in dialogue about issues surrounding the
common good. Beyond promoting social discourse and learning directed at sustainable
development, public participation contributes to the processes by which public sector actors
18
justify their decisions; scientists participate in society; and, societies identify, understand and
deal with environmental problems (Farrell, Van Deveer, & Jager, 2001).
According to Webler (1995, p.38) a normative model of public participation is one that
expresses and defends a vision about what public participation should accomplish and in what
manner. Discord, however, is evident in numerous areas of public participation discourse. At
the outset, it is important to note that although there is widespread consensus about the
importance of public participation in environment assessment, agreement is not universal.
Kapoor (2001) cautions against embracing participation as the solution for outstanding issues
in resource management. In the mainstreaming of participatory environmental management, in
the replacement of the old with the new, lies the danger of substituting one orthodoxy for
another (Kapoor, 2001, p.276).
Beyond the broad question of the utility, however, dispute surrounds many aspects of public
participation. Numerous empirical studies examine, and postulate about, normative models of
public participation. Foci of research activities include, among others:
degrees of empowerment provided to participants through different mechanisms
(Amstein, 1969; Fitzpatrick, submitted; Praxis, 1988; Rocha, 1997),
*
motivation behind an individuals decision not to participate (Diduck & Sinclair, 2002),
participation during normative and strategic planning activities (Smith, 1982),

methods for evaluating public involvement programs, based on different criteria,
including deliberative democracy (Abelson et al., 2003; Palerm, 2000), and the more
focused concepts of fairness and competence (Webler, 1995; Webler & Tuler, 2000),
discourses surrounding evaluating participatory processes (Webler, Seth, & Kruger,
2001),
barriers to deliberative participation (Diduck, Moyer, & Briscoe, submitted; Petts,

2003), and
*
impact of public participation on decision making (Sinclair & Fitzpatrick, 2002).
These studies were conducted with the goal of improving the effectiveness and efficiency of
public participation in EA. They suggest ways to improve public engagement, drawing from
19
different theoretical underpinning, all supportive of citizens engaged in the public policy arena.
Building on this broad objective, however, is other research that not only looks at improving
public participation, but also seeks broader returns in terms of promoting sustainability. The
vision of sustainability should not only be currently encouraged in economic development
(through the EA), but also in the patterns of interactions by participants of the process. Hence,
research examines learning as an outcome of participation (Diduck, 1995,1999; Diduck &
Mitchell, 2003; Diduck & Sinclair, 1997a, 1997b; Fitzpatrick & Sinclair, 2003; Sinclair &
Diduck, 2001). This last body of work is the focus of this research.
2.3
Education and learning
As noted in Chapter 1, education and learning are important to public involvement. In terms of
EA, education creates an awareness of the process and facilitates an understanding of
substantive environmental, economic and social issues (Diduck & Sinclair, 1997a, pp. 295296). Education provides a foundation for effective participation in consultation initiatives by
ensuring the public knows how to participate and participants have a basic comprehension of the
complex issues related to the specific project under review. Education becomes both a
precondition for, and an outcome of, fair and effective consultation of stakeholders.
Furthermore, according to Webler, Katenholz & Renn (1995, p.461), if public participation
practitioners orient processes to promote social learning... then public participation will become
more effective at strengthening democracy and overcoming the tendency of people to be rational
egotists.
In addition to contributing to public engagement, learning is cited as necessary for achieving
sustainability, one identified goal of EA.
How are individuals in the real world to be persuaded or made to act in the common
interest [of sustainable development]? The answer lies partly in education,
institutional development, and law enforcement (WCED, 1987, p.46).
The most pragmatic approach is one based on learning our way to sustainable
futures, rather than planning our way (Yorque et al., 2002, p.419).
Environmental education is well-established as both a requirement and a tool for
sustainable development (Leal Filho, 2000, p. 12).
Models of environmental education are based on a framework of teaching about the
environment, from the environment, and fo r the environment, and include knowledge about
20
human activities that are cause for concern about the human relationship with the environment
(Palmer, 1998). Researchers, such as Hungerford and Volke (1990), hypothesize that
environmental education programs will promote learning outcomes by participants who will
redress environmentally destructive behaviour by placing a premium on the environment.
Education becomes a practice that helps create a deeper understanding of the inter
connectedness of all life, supports human nature inter-reaction as a critical component of the
learning process, recognizes that the way education occurs is as important as its content (Orr,
1992, p.91).
As may be evident from the discussion in Chapter 1, understanding learning is a complex
objective, with multiple approaches grounded in multiple disciplines. In terms of achieving
sustainable development, scholars are turning towards a framework of learning that promotes
changes not only to specific environmentally insensitive actions, but also changes to broader
meaning perspectives, the ontology that implicitly guides behaviour (Clover, 2002; O'Sullivan,
Morrell, & O'Connor, 2002; O'Sullivan & Taylor, 2004; Shilling, 2002). To this end,
transformative learning provides a framework for considering environmentally-focused learning.
2.3.1
Transformative learning
Transformative learning is a framework of adult development and a derivative concept of adult

education. Built on Habermas communicative action and complemented by literature
surrounding Freires (1973) critical pedagogy, this framework examines how adults interact
within the context of their surrounding conditions and postulates how these interactions relate to
adult learning. Discourse surrounding transformative learning centres on how to encourage
learning so an individuals perceptions and consciousness can be altered as that person is
critically engaged. The overarching goal of transformative learning is to help adults realize
their potential for becoming more liberated, socially responsible, and autonomous learners,
(Mezirow & Associates, 2000, p.30). This goal is intertwined with the pragmatic objective to
help learners achieve specific learning aims.
In the course of daily life, adults engage in activities that must be understood in order to ensure
appropriate and effective action. In the act o f providing a coherent framework through which to
understand an experience, one confers meaning to the experience (Mezirow & Associates,
2000). Understanding rests in an individuals frame of reference, consisting of ones meaning
schemes (specific beliefs, meanings, attitudes, and value judgments) and/or meaning
21
perspectives (broad, generalized, orienting predispositions) (Mezirow, 1996). Learning, then, is

the process of using a prior interpretation to construe a new or a revised interpretation of the
meaning of ones experience as a guide to future action (Mezirow & Associates, 2000, p.5).
This process results in revisions or reconstructions to the individuals frame of reference.
Rational discourse provides a medium through which learning is promoted and developed (E. W.
Taylor, 2000). When there is reason or opportunity to question a speech act, as provided for in
the ISS experience, critical refection can occur (Mezirow, 1990). Mezirow (1991) outlines
seven ideal conditions for fostering perspective transformation, congruent to the ISS:
accurate and complete information,
freedom from coercion and distorting self deception,
*
ability to weigh evidence and assess arguments objectively,
openness to alternative perspectives,

opportunity to reflect critically upon presuppositions and consequences,
*
equal opportunity to participate, and,
opportunity to have arguments evaluated in a systematic fashion.
Democratic dialogue ensues when these conditions are met. In these circumstances, individuals
may undergo a process of transformation.
Individual learning, as noted by Mezirow (1991), involves multiple dimensions. Learning may
include the acquisition of new skills and information by individuals and organizations, or
instrumental learning. Learning also includes less tangible outcomes, including changes to
points of view, or approaches to situations, termed meaning schemes and meaning
perspectives. These outcomes are referred to as communicative learning. Diduck and Mitchell
(2003) develop categories of instrumental and communicative learning outcomes based on
participation in EA (Table 2,3).
22
Table 2.3: Categories of learning outcomes found in EA (Diduck, 2004).
1INSTRUMENTAL LEARNING
1
Scientific and technical advice
1
Legal, administrative and political
procedures
Social and economic knowledge
Potential risks and impacts
COMMUNICATIVE LEARNING
Insight into ones own interest
Insight into the interest of others
Communication strategies and methods
Social mobilization
Numerous empirical research activities have contributed to transformative learning (E. W.

Taylor, 1997,2000). A review of findings leads to four basic conceptual issues related to
transformative learning (Merriam & Caffarella, 1999), namely:
context: Critics question if the transformative learning process adequately addresses the
social or historic background of the learner (E. W. Taylor, 2000). Since publication of
Taylors essay, preliminary work by Merriam and Mohamad (2000) explores how
culture influences the shape of adult learning, including curricula and learning
processes.
rationality: Drawing from Habermas, Mezirow (1991) relies on rationality as a means of
effecting transformation. To this end, he, too, receives criticism that his model for
learning is culturally specific (Merriam & Caffarella, 1999). Remedy lies in
understanding that Mezirows conceptualization of the transformation process represents
only one model through which learning can develop. Alternative models for achieving
transformative learning are relevant, such as those described by Grabove (1997),
McDonald (1999) and McDonald, Cervero & Courtenay (1999).
role of the educator: This criticism focuses on the responsibility of the educator and the
ethics behind his/her interference in perspective learning. Subsequent initiatives,
including the research of Cranton (1998,2000,2002,1997), K. Taylor (2000), & K,
Taylor, Marienau, & Fiddler (2000), endeavour to rectify this omission, through the
provision of specific activities designed to foster transformative learning.
social action. Transformative learning emphasizes individual change. In drawing on the
works of Habermas and Freire, two scholars who emphasize social change, Mezirow
appears to have neglected this focus. This oversight is exacerbated by the reliance on
23
discourse as a means of promoting individual change; if group discussion is essential to

the learning process, social change is inevitable. Aalsburg Wiessner & Mezirow (2000,
p.348) support efforts to apply transformative learning that addresses social goals as this
framework offers a means of changing frames of reference as required to initiate and
support the prescribed personal, social or organizational change. This association is
particularly relevant where an individuals learning is associated with social or
organization change. With this framework, however, learning begins at an individual
level, aggregated to the larger social context.
Brookfield (2000) considers this issue in a broader context. The suitability of transformative
learning as a framework for considering social change is consistent with the contribution of
Freire (1973). In a threefold argument, Brookfield suggests that the inclusion of praxis provides
the first impetus for considering social change. As praxis is reliant on action, learning
contributes to liberation of the social world. The recognition that education must examine
existing ideologies, which are perpetuated through hegemonic education practices, provides a
second link to the social realm. Finally, the process through which an individual becomes
critical is inherently social. Any critical effort we undertake can only be accomplished with the
help of critical friends (Brookfield, 2000, p. 146).
A small, but growing, body of literature draws on transformative learning as a framework for
understanding opportunities for adult development as they arise from participation EA (Diduck,
2001,2004; Diduck & Sinclair, 1997a; Fitzpatrick & Sinclair, 2003). This literature evaluates
the learning environment against conditions that foster transformative learning, and discusses
learning outcomes associated with participation in EA.
2.3.2
Summary
Given the emphasis on social dialogue as an impetus for personal and social change,
transformative learning addresses many of the goals of sustainable development and EA, as
outlined above. The utilization of rational discourse as a way to reconsider meaning schemes
and meaning perspectives provides a vehicle for considering the public and ethical dimensions
of environmentally responsible behavior. This forum may in turn, result in modification of
activities, particularly in events of perspective transformation of participants. Instrumental and
communicative learning related to production, consumption, lifestyles, and the impacts to the
24
ecological environment can be discussed through these discourses. Thus, transformative

learning provides an important framework for understanding learning through EA.
However, because transformative learning has to this point focused on individuals as the unit of
analysis, when examining organizational learning it is prudent to explore how the literature
addresses differences in scale of learning. For this, I turn to management literature, which
includes a number of frameworks directed at understanding organizational learning.
2.4
Learning in organizations
Although transformative learning can serve as a framework for considering social change, the
dearth of methodological and empirical research with respect to organizational learning is
problematic. Consideration of the contribution of organizational learning activities requires the
review of organizational learning literature. Models of organizational learning are concerned
with the nature of learning as a function of an organization (Ortenblad 2001).
According to Dixon (1994, p.7), an organization is defined as purposeful social systems which
have three interrelated tasks: (1) the development of the organization itself, (2) the development
of the individuals who comprise the organization, and (3) the development of the larger system
of which the organization is a part. As illustrated by Dixons characterization, an organization
includes both individual (private meaning) components of members, and collective components
derived from accessible private meanings, those parts of individual meaning made available to
others. In sum, an organization consists of constituent parts of participants individual
accessible meanings, which unite to form a collective meaning or knowledge. An organization
learns if any of its units acquire knowledge that it recognizes as potentially useful to the
organization (Huber, 1996,126). As more of the organizational units obtain this information,
the breath of organizational learning expands. As the organization develops more varied
interpretations of information, organizational learning increases.
2.4.1
Organizational learning
Argyris and Schon (1996) conceive of organizational learning as a change in the general theories
in use by an organization, arising as a function of a process of inquiry, detection and correction
(Robinson, 2001). In this model, individuals are perceived as the agents of organizational
learning, making learning a cognitive-based practice (Finger & Burgen Brand, 1999; Ortenblad,
25
2001). As knowledge is stored in the memory of an organization, it becomes embedded in the

organizations strategies for action.
Within an organization, three paths of learning are available: learning that leads to improved
performance; inquiry through which organizations explore and restructure approaches; and,
inquiry designed to improve the capacity of the organization to undertake learning related to
either of the above (Argyris & Schon, 1996). When inquiry leads to improved performance, it is
said to be single-loop. This concept involves the detection and change of an error within a
specific variable. Linked to incremental change, single-loop learning is where an organization
tries out new methods and tactics and attempts to get rapid feedback on their consequences in
order to be able to make more continuous adjustments and adaptations (Easterby-Smith &
Araujo, 1999, p.3). The analogy provided by Argyris (1993, p.8) is that of a thermostat. The
thermostat is programmed to detect states of too cold or too hot, and to correct the situation
by turning the heat on or off. This function, detection and remedy, is conceived of as single
loop learning. Double-loop learning is learning that results in a change in the values of the
theory-in-use, as well as [changes in] the strategies and assumptions (Argyris & Schon, 1996,
p.21). To continue the analogy, double-loop learning would involve the thermostat asking if 22
degrees were the appropriate temperature, or why it (the thermostat) was programmed to react to
variations in temperature. The final type of inquiry, that designed to improve the capacity of the
organization to undertake learning, is termed triple-loop learning. Table 2.4 identifies the
characteristics and results of single- and double- loop learning.
Table 2.4: Characteristics and results of single- and double- loop learning (Romme &
Dillen, 1997, p.70).
SINGLE-LOOP LEARNING
Characteristics Based on repetition
Routine
Within existing structures
Results
Changes behavior or performance
Problem solving capability
DOUBLE-LOOP LEARNING
Based on understanding
Non-Routine
Aims at changing rules and structures
Changes mental models
Development of new cultures
Organizational learning is process-oriented (Ortenblad, 2001). Argyris and Shon (1996) provide
a descriptive model of how they envision learning instinctively occurs in an organization. The
single- and double-loop models envision learning as a technical process. [Organizational
learning is about the effective processing, interpretation of, and response to, information both
26
inside and outside the organization (Easterby-Smith & Araujo, 1999, p.3). Information is
gathered through organizational structures that include channels of communication, information
systems, the spatial environment (insofar as it influences patterns of communication), procedures
and routines to guide inquiry, and system of incentives that influence an individuals desire to
undertake inquiry. These organizational structures are governed by the behavioral world of the
organization, which facilitates or inhibits organizational inquiry (Argyris & Schon, 1996,
p.28). These structures are often grouped into four categories: knowledge acquisition,
information distribution, information interpretation and organizational memory (Huber 1996).
Easterby-Smith, Antonacopoulou, Simm, & Lyles (2004) identify seven scholarly contributions
of literature centred on organizational learning. Drawing from the seminal work of Argysis and
Schon (1978), the authors suggest that the two most significant developments in the literature
relate to the concept of loop learning, and the notion of espoused theory, versus theory in use2.
Additional contributions to the literature are the need for unlearning, the introduction of a
learning organization (Senge, 1990), a socio-cultural perspective, where humans are seen as the
drivers of learning (Cook & Yanow, 1996), a discussion about the relationship between culture
and knowledge transfer, and a potential linkage among knowledge, learning and
competitiveness.
Building on this summation, Bapuji & Crossan (2004) document the proliferation of
organizational learning studies. After completing an analysis of key themes, they conclude that
There is growing consensus in the literature that learning can be behavioral and cognitive,
exogenous and endogenous, methodological and emergent, incremental and radical, and can
occur at various levels in the organization (Bapuji & Crossan, 2004, p.400). Furthermore,
empirical research focuses on six facilitators of organizational learning: culture, strategy,
governance structures, environment, organizational stage and resource position. What the
literature does not do is provide a comprehensive framework for considering organizational
learning; what combinations of facilitators are useful to learning?3
2 Espoused theory involves the operating principles that an organization advocates. Theory in use
involves the actual way an organization functions.
3 Crossan, Lane, & White (1999) and Templeton, Morris, Snyder, & Lewis (2004) present preliminary
frameworks for understanding organizational learning.
27
Single- and double-loop learning have been applied to many management activities, including
resource management (Diduck et al., submitted). Diduck et. al. employ the concept of loop
learning to categories of learning outcomes of interactive policy-making initiatives surrounding
the Red River floodway. Barriers to learning derived from the organizational learning and
learning organization literature - namely defensive theories in use and unresolved conflicts,
information and communication deficiencies, blaming external agents, and lack of systems
thinking - are discussed in the context of process design. To this end, although the authors
acknowledge that learning is an outcome of engagement, most of the discussion focuses on
procedural deficiencies, rather than on participant organizations. While process is an important
consideration, it is insufficient for considering organizational learning.
2.4.2
Summary
The organizational learning literature provides a framework for classifying learning outcomes
(single- and double-loop learning) and direction for understanding institutional components that
facilitate learning. An organization learns when its members acquire knowledge that is found
to be useful to that organization. As individual learning then is captured in organizational
systems, organizational learning ensues. Despite a recent explosion of literature related to
organizational learning, this field continues to lack a comprehensive framework for measuring
organizational learning, or evaluating the factors that are significant to this process. Much of the
literature uses a reconstructive approach.
2.5
Theoretical framework
What arises from the discussion of transformative learning and organizational learning is that
linkages exist between individual and organizational learning processes (Crossan et al., 1999).
Furthermore, it is important to situate this research within the specific political context of EA
through a discussion of the learning environment (Fitzpatrick & Sinclair, 2003). Therefore, a
theoretical framework for understanding organizational learning should consider the following
elements, and how they interact:
*
the Individual. Drawing primarily from the education literature, criteria reflect
situational characteristics - input into learning agenda, access to information, time to
reflect on material - associated with adult learning. Does EA provide a forum conducive
to transformative learning?
28
the Learning Environment. Drawing from a combination of education, management and

political science literature, criteria focus on the scope, nature and processes of the public
forum through which the EA is reviewed. Can EA serve as a vehicle for deliberative
democracy?
*
the Organization. Drawing from management literature, criteria relate to organizational

structures that facilitate learning (Argyris & Schon, 1996). What are the learning
capacities of organizations participating in the EA?
Combining the discourse elements against the different claims, it is possible to capture
discussion surrounding a topic (Brown, 1991). In this research, theme areas are organized in a
four by three framework to reveal and explore thoughts that contribute to the discussion of
organizational learning through EA (see Table 2.5).
Table 2.5: General research template.
DISCOURSE ELEMENT
Individual
Learning
Environment
T y p e o f c l a im
Organization
Definitive
(Communicative)
Designative (Constantive)
Evaluative (Regulative)
Advocative
(Representative)
Drawing from appropriate literature, specific criteria complete the research template related to
the individual and the learning environment, and research questions related to organizational
learning and the environment. Table 2.6 provides a summary of the criteria and operational
definitions related to EA.
2.5.1
Individual
2.5.1.1
Participatory
Learners should have a voice in the development of the learning agenda (Preskill & Torres,
1999; Shor, 1993). This criterion is designed to address the participatory nature of the learning
program. As applied to EA, this criterion explores how individuals were engaged in developing
the scope of the assessment. The extent to which the EA participants contribute to the scope of
the EA provides a foundation for discussing the participatory nature of the assessment process.
29
Table 2.6: Summary of criteria for considering learning through EA and operational
definitions.
CRITERIA
Individual Learning
Participatory
Learners should have a voice in the development of the
learning agenda.
Situated
Learners should have access to material that is
accurate, complete, and reflective of their needs.
Critical
Education should encourage self reflection and social
analysis.
Individual Outcomes
Activities should allow for changes in individual
meaning schemes and/or meaning perspectives, as
categorized as instrumental or communicative learning.
Learning Environment
Inclusiveness
Activities should encourage participation.
Argumentation
Alternative perspectives should be explored and
evaluated in a systematic fashion.
Equity
Participants should be given sufficient opportunity to
negotiate the activity.
Policy-oriented learning
Activities should be linked to changes in the policy
subsystem.
Organizational Learning
Information sharing
Organization should have internal systems to draw
from and build on internal expertise.
Information Interpretation
Organizations should have internal processes for
building shared meaning from experiences.
Memory
Organizations should have mechanisms for recording
and referencing learning outcomes.
Organizational Outcomes
Activities should allow for single- and double-loop
| learning, manifest through thoughts and actions that are
| new to the organization.
OPERATIONAL DEFINITION
Did individuals contribute to the scope
of the assessment?
Were participants able to access
assessment information in a format
that suited their needs?
Did the timing and scope of the
review allow participants to consider
assessment issues?
What instrumental and communicative
learning outcomes are attributed to the
EA?
How was the public engaged in the

assessment process?
Did the EA include evidence from
different points of view?
Do participants believe that
assessment activities were equitable?
Did the EA contribute to policyoriented learning?
What systems do organizations have

for sharing information?
What methods do organizations have
for interpreting learning?
How do organizations record learning
outcomes for future use?
What organizational learning
outcomes are associated with the
assessment?
30
In working together to define the extent of the public review, assessment participants can pursue
their specific interests, in a manner that promotes interaction. In this way an assessment
becomes an interactive model through which interested people actively negotiate issues that they
believe should be considered in the assessment. Discourse surrounding the scope is definitive in
nature; participants work to establish a common vocabulary for discussion.
2.5.1.2
Situated1
The second criterion relates to the nature of the learning program in terms of the needs of
participants (Shor, 1993). To learn, participants must have access to a body of material that is
accurate and complete (Mezirow, 1991). Furthermore, data should be available in forms that
meet participants needs (Fitzpatrick & Sinclair, 2003; Shor, 1993).
In terms of EA, this criterion is operationalized through consideration of access to information.
Were participants able to retrieve and utilize data necessary to review the environmental impact
of the proposed development? Indicators of this criterion address key sources of information,
namely the public registry, media coverage of the assessment, and the hearings. Discourse
surrounding the situated nature of the assessment is negotiated by participants on a designative
basis; what is the correct depiction of events?
2.5.1.3
Critical
This criterion considers the critical nature of the learning program. Education should allow for
self reflection and social analysis (Preskill & Torres, 1999; Shor, 1993). Learners should have
an opportunity to reflect on presuppositions and consequences (Mezirow, 1991). One of the
limiting factors involved in critical reflection is time. This criterion is operationalized for EA
through consideration of the degree to which participants were given the time necessary to
consider assessment information, and interact with assessment participants. A second limiting
factor involves the focus of the review. This criterion is also operationalized for EA by
examining key areas of the assessment process. As summarized by Boyd (2003,149-150)5 an
The term situated is used in a Freirian (1973:100) context, meaning that education should fall within the
learners understanding of the world. While there are numerous mechanisms to ensure education is context
specific for learners, this research focuses on how learners can access documentation.
5 Boyd (2003,149-150) identifies seven characteristics of effective EA. Four characteristics address
assessment process: adopting sustainability as the primary purpose, implementing strategic EAs,
31
EA should consider all potential impacts, including cumulative effects, evaluate need for and
alternatives to project development, and require monitoring of effects. Did the scope of the
assessment address the need for and alternatives to, cumulative effects of, and monitoring and
follow-up of the project? Discussion related to the critical nature of the assessment process is
evaluative in nature; do the assertions reflect legitimate social needs?
2.5.1.4
Individual Outcomes
This criterion explores the nature of the learning outcomes experienced by participants. As
noted by Mezirow (1991), learning occurs through changes in meaning schemes and/or meaning
perspectives. As applied to EA, these learning outcomes are categorized as instrumental or
communicative in nature. Discussion related to individual learning outcomes is advocative in
nature; participants gauge the authenticity of the information based on their belief that the
dialogue is sincere.
2.5.2
Learning Environment
2.5.2.1
Desocializing6
Democracy should encourage unlimited participation (Dryzek, 1990a), and education should
foster active participation (Shor, 1993). This criterion explores the extent to which interested
parties have the opportunity to participate in the event - the extent to which the assessment
provided for interactive policy making. In terms of EA, it examines how the public was engaged
in the assessment process. Discourse surrounding the opportunities for public participation is
definitive; participants work to establish a common understanding of activities, and devise a
common vocabulary through which to discuss the issues. In this case, the criterion examines if
the public is encouraged to be actively engaged in the EA.
2.5.2.2
Argumentation
This criterion addresses how participants are exposed to different points of view. Learning
activities should ensure that participants hear from a variety of perspectives, including diverging
involving the public in decision making and assigning decision-making authority to independent
agencies. The three additional points, discussed in the text, relate to specific EA content.
6 The term desocializing is used in a Freirian (1973) context, whereby learners are encouraged to break the
hegemonic bonds (conditioning of the dominate culture that works to maintain their positions of power). As
noted in the text, then, this research encourages active engagement in democratic processes (namely EA) to
empower learners.
32
and dissenting opinions (Mezirow, 1991; Preskill & Torres, 1999; Shor, 1993). As applied to
EA, this criterion considers what activities were undertaken to ensure that a variety of alternative
ideas was discussed. Discourse surrounding argumentation is designative; participants assess the
merit of claims based on their accuracy. What is the correct depiction of events?
2.5.23
Equity
One requisite of the ISS and a precursor to deliberative democracy (Benhabib, 1996; Dryzek,
1990a), this criterion explores the nature of the rules governing the event. As described in
section 2.1.1, equitable participation requires common rules governing interaction, including
similar rights to question and engage in dialogue about the process (Benhabib, 1996). This
theme is also an important precondition for learning (Mezirow, 1991; Preskill & Torres, 1999).
As applied to EA, discourse revolves around the participants perceptions of equity in procedure.
Discussion related to equity is evaluative; participants negotiate these claims on the basis of
whether the assertions reflect their perceptions of legitimate social needs.
2.5.2.4
Policy-oriented learning
This criterion examines learning outcomes that extend beyond the unit of the individual or
organization, to a broader group of people who work as a coalition in specific policy
development (Bennett & Howlett, 1992). As noted by Sabatier (1993a) policy systems include a
variety of actors from different institutions, including different levels of government. It is
possible to aggregate different policy actors into advocacy coalitions, groups who share common
values and perceptions of the specific problem of interest. As a result of experiences with policy
development, the beliefs, thoughts and approaches of these advocacy coalitions change (JenkinsSmith & Sabatier, 1993). This policy-oriented learning refers to relatively enduring
alterations of thought or behavior intentions that result from experiences and are concerned with
the attainment or revision of policy objectives (Sabatier, 1993b, p.19). This criterion is
concerned with the extent to which the activity contributes to policy-oriented learning. As
applied to EA, this criterion examines if policy-oriented learning outcomes can be attributed to
participation in the EA. Discussion related to policy-oriented learning is advocative: is dialogue
sincere?
33
2.5.3
Organization
2.5.3.1
Information dissemination
Information distribution involves processes by which information from different sources is

shared, and thereby leads to new information or understanding (Huber, 1996, p.127). These
systems include two types of aspects: knowledge logistics - understanding the sources of
information, content and needs or organizational members, - and knowledge dissemination tools for sharing knowledge among organizational members, including methods of education and
training, and dissemination of information (Templeton, Lewis, & Snyder, 2002).
Research related to information distribution has traditionally included discussion of the
interpretation of events by multiple organizational members (do participants share a common
view of activities?), frameworks for decision making, the use of communication tools, such as email and telephone, and mechanisms through which unnecessary information is removed
(Templeton et al., 2002).
All organizations should have systems for sharing information. As applied to EA, this criterion
documents an opportunity to consider how an organization draws from and builds on existing
expertise.
2.5.3.2
Information interpretation
Information interpretation involves process[es] by which distributed information is given one or

more commonly understood interpretation (Huber, 1996, p.127). Metrics surrounding
information interpretation focus on four aspects: cognitive maps and framing, which involve
shared meaning frames of organizational members; richness of media used to share information;
the potential for information overload; and the need for and capacity to engage in unlearning
(Templeton et al., 2002, pp. 191-192).
Organizations should have internal processes for building shared meaning from experience.
Specific to EA, this criterion explores the methods through which organizations interpret
learning.
2.5.3.3
Organizational memory
Organizational memory is the means by which information is stored for future use (Huber,
1996, p.127). Organizational memory includes both human and non-human elements, including
34
human memory and systems for storing and retrieving information (Templeton et al., 2002, pp.
191-192).
Organizational memory is the aspect of organizational development most often neglected. As
observed by Huber (1996, p.148), [e]very day experience and some research make clear that the
human components of organizational memory are often less than satisfactory. This neglect
arises from turnover of personnel, not understanding the need for fostering organizational
memory, and a lack of understanding of the knowledge of organizational staff (see discussion of
information distribution).
As applied to EA, this criterion explores how organizations record learning outcomes for future
use.
2.5.3.4
Organizational outcomes
This criterion explores the nature of the learning outcomes experienced by organizations. As
with individual learning, organizational learning has multiple dimensions. In this respect, data
should include single and double loop learning outcomes of participants (Argyris & Schon,
1996). Where available, consideration is also given to explore changes in organizational
mandate and direction. Specific to an EA, then, this criterion explores the organizational
learning outcomes associated with the assessment. Discussion related to organizational learning
outcomes is advocative: is dialogue sincere?
2.5.4
Research framework
The twelve criteria discussed above are illustrated in Table 2.7.

Table 2.7: Theoretical framework for understanding organizational learning through
EA.
Type of claim
Definitive
(Communicative)
Designative (Constantive)
1 Evaluative (Regulative)
Advocative
1 (Representative)
Discourse Element
Individual
Learning
Environment
Participatory
Desocializing
Organizational
Dissemination
Situated
Argumentation
Interpretation
Critical
Individual
outcomes
Equity
Policy oriented
learning
Memory
Organizational
Outcomes
35
2.5.5
Nature of the relationship
Beyond documenting learning events specific to EA through the idealized criteria collected from
education, political science, and management literature, discussion should also include
consideration of the nature of the relationship between EA and learning. How do participants
relate their experience with EA to their learning? To this end, discussion centres on two
components:
learning events. The focus of this research is learning; one of the key assumptions of
this work is that it is possible to learn through participation in EA. This dimension
establishes participants understanding of the relationship between EA and learning.
qualities. To understanding the linkages among sustainable development, EA, public

participation, and learning, this dimension explores what qualities of the assessment
process lend themselves to learning.
2.5.6
Summary
Understanding opportunities for organizational learning through participation in EA is

necessarily interdisciplinary in nature. Educational literature contributes to an understanding of
learning. Management literature contributes to an understanding of organizations. Political
science literature contributes to an understanding of the democratic context through which these
activities take place. Geographical literature centred on sustainable development, EA and public
participation develops the specific research context.
Three discourse elements (the individual, the organization, and the learning environment) are
important to understand organizational learning through EA. When cross referenced with the
theory of argumentation, a research concourse is constructed.
A discussion of the nature of the relationship between EA and learning complements this
theoretical framework.
2.6
Conclusion
In this chapter, I have accepted that education is critical to furthering the goals of sustainable
development. Communicative action, a theory addressing the consequences of modernization on
social relations, serves as the theoretical construct through which this argument is developed
36
(section 2.1). The dialogic, consensus-based foundations of communicative action find

pragmatic venues in political science through discursive democracy, and planning through
communicative planning.
Drawing from this theoretical perspective, the goals of sustainable development and EA were
outlined in section 2.2. The public and ethical dimensions of sustainable development support
deliberative democratic approaches to resource management; in tools and processes designed to
achieve sustainable development, including EA, interactive policy making is important. To that
end, research related to public engagement was reviewed.
In section 2.3, education was established to be an important component of deliberative
democracy, in that competence is a necessity for engagement in public processes, and for
sustainable development, in that learning is necessary to a set of human relations, and humannature relations, aimed at greening existing patterns of production, consumption and lifestyles.
This discourse serves as a foundation for research directed at exploring opportunities for
organizational learning through an EA. A review of theoretical and empirical literature explored
two concepts of learning: transformative learning, discussed in section 2.3.1, and organizational
learning discussed in section 2.4. From these two perspectives, a theoretical framework for
exploring organizational learning was developed in section 2.5. This framework integrates a
Habermasian set of ideal speech concepts with potential EA learning in three categories:
individual learning, learning environment and organizational learning (Table 2.6).
It is through understanding organizational learning associated with EA - Can organizations learn
through EA? How does learning become part of organizational memory? What qualities of the
process lead to learning? and, What learning outcomes are associated with EA? - that we are, in
part, better able to understand the relationship between sustainable development and EA.
37
Chapter
RESEARCH DESIGN
3.1
Research approach
This research takes a qualitative approach to address the research question and three associated
objectives identified in Section 1.2. Analysis is based on a search for common experiences,
indicated by patterns revealed in the data (Bernard, 1994). Communicative action is part of a
broader category of qualitative research referred to as critical social science. This type of study
envisions research as a critical process of inquiry that goes beyond surface illusions to uncover
the real structures in the material world in order to help people change conditions and build a better
world for themselves (Neuman, 2000, p.76). Investigations, then, focus on social relations as
experienced by participants, as a means of critique and transformation of the structures that
constrain humankind (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). Drawing broadly from the ideas presented in
Chapter 2, this research is concerned with applying communicative rationality to the process of
EA. The utilization of interactive policy making as a means of reaching assessment decisions
encourages public discourse surrounding specific project proposals, and to a lesser degree,
broader sustainability objectives. Understanding opportunities for organizational learning
through EA, then, contributes to a enhanced knowledge for refining and improving the process.
3.1.1
Comparative case study
The strategy of inquiry for this research is a case study. Bounding research activities within a
specific time and event, in this case an EA, focused the investigation and allowed for descriptive
analysis. Anchored in real-life situations, the case study results in a rich and holistic account of
phenomenon (Merriam, 1988, p.32).
Case selection was based on eight criteria:
the timing of the project activities, with on-going activities contributing to the
assessment decision being considered as more desirable,
the language of the EA documents and participants, with a predominance of English

regarded as more desirable,
38
the context of the assessment, with the regional history inclusive of a previous EA of
similar scale considered as more favourable,
the nature of the assessment processes, with comparable legislative requirements being
considered as more favourable,
the opportunities for public participation, with similar public participation programs
being considered as more desirable,
the receptiveness of participants, in which the willingness of participants, governments,

and industry involved in the assessment to participate in this study being considered as
more favourable,
the scope of participation in the project, with greater interest by a broad public
representation being regarded as more desirable, and
the accessibility of participants, where fewer hearing locations (and by extension, access
to participants of those hearings) being considered as more favourable.
Given the dissertations focus on learning through participation in EA, it was necessary to select
an EA process where public participation was an important component of the review. Although
a majority of EAs are small scale7 (Sinclair & Fitzpatrick, 2002), public participation is usually
mandatory only in large-scale EAs (Sinclair & Diduck, in press). As such, and in line with the
fifth criterion for case selection, case study selection focused on large-scale EAs.
The original research design involved one current and one historic case study, selected from five
on-going, large-scale EAs (Table 3.1). The application of the criteria led to the choice of the EA
of the Wuskwatim projects as the case primary case study. However, uncertainties associated
with the timing of this assessment (discussed in section 4.6.1) led to the identification of an
alternative case study; the EA of the Snap Lake Project was selected as the alternative case.
When the original timing challenges were resolved, rather than use a current/historical approach
7A small-scale EA includes screenings under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (1992),
preliminary screenings under the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act (1998), and class one
assessments under the Environment Act (1987) of Manitoba.
39
to the research, the research design was modified to include both cases. As such, the strategy of
inquiry for this research is one of comparative case studies.
While one case study can result in rich explanatory findings, generalizable to other situations,
additional case studies provide more robust evidence (Yin, 1984). The use of two case studies geographically and politically distinct - allows for analysis based on specific and generic
properties (Stake, 1994). Results can contribute to insight about what qualities of an EA can
provide for organizational learning. While this is important for understanding if findings extend
beyond one case, each case remains unique based on
1. the nature of the case
2. its historical background
3. the physical setting
4. other contextual aspects, including economic, political, legal, and aesthetic
5. other cases through which this case is recognized
6. those informants through whom the case can be known (Stake, 1994, p.238).
To address the unique qualities of each case study, analysis considers both the findings of each
case and the patterns exhibited across both cases.
Table 3.1: On-going EAs considered as potential cases studies for this research.
Wuskwatim Hydro Generating Station

Manitoba
Liquefied Natural Gas Marine Terminal & Multi-Purpose Pier
New Brunswick
Northwest Territories Beaufort Sea Exploration Drilling Program
Snap Lake Diamond Project
Nunavut
Doris Hinge Gold Project
Bruce Heavy Water Plant Decommissioning
Ontario
|
1
I
1
1
|
Although specific case details are presented in Chapters 4 and 5, it is appropriate to identify the
suitability of the EA of the Wuskwatim projects and the Snap Lake project for comparative
purposes. In general, the cases share the following characteristics:
assessment process: The assessment processes included opportunities for public

comment on the scope of the hearings, a technical review that included the adoption of a
written question and response component, and hearings before a quasi-judicial board.
40
cross cultural setting: The proposed developments are situated on the traditional lands of
First Nations and, the process included significant involvement from First Nations
organizations, and included negotiation of agreements to compensate for the adverse
residual impacts of the development.
animators: Participants included a range of animators (policy actors), and organizations,

including governments, administrative tribunals, non-state public actors (non
governmental organizations) and non-state corporate actors.
In addition to these similarities, case differences may also provide for insight surrounding
successful assessment procedures, particularly with respect to organizational learning. The EAs
of the Wuskwatim projects and the Snap Lake project differ in terms of:
assessment history: Although Manitoba has a rich EA history (see section 4.2.3), the
EA of the Wuskwatim projects represented the first assessment for a hydro project in the
Province. Conversely, the Snap Lake project was an assessment of the third diamond
mine reviewed, and developed, in the Northwest Territories.
participant assistance: Funding was provided to interveners through the EA of the

Wuskwatim projects. Participant assistance was not available to interveners through the
EA of the Snap Lake project.
3.2
Research methods
Within the case studies, data were collected using three methods: document review, participant
observation, and interviews.
3.2.1
Document review
Beyond an examination of the usual literature, grey literature (literature not widely published
such as government publications and academic dissertations) provides a wealth of information
related to specific EAs. The most significant source of information is generally the assessment
public registry. A public registry is a central depot for housing documentation related to an EA
to make the material available to the public (Sinclair & Diduck, in press). Registries generally
include the impact statement, formal documentation submitted for the hearings (e.g. written
submissions related to the scope of the EA, written questions and answers related to the impact
41
statement, presentation material, curriculum vitae for presenters), and hearing transcripts. In
some instances, public registries also include written correspondence surrounding the EA
process, including emails, letters and, in some instances, media coverage. During this research,
four documentation centres were visited (Table 3.2).
Table 3.2: Public registries associated with case studies.
PROJECT
Wuskwatim projects,
Manitoba
Snap Lake Project

Northwest Territories
Manitoba Conservation, Main Street

Library
Clean Environment Commission
Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Mackenzie Valley Environmental
Impact Review Board
Winnipeg, MB, Canada

Yellowknife, NT, Canada
Additional information, such as organizational mandate, submissions to the EA, and research
associated with project impacts, was made available to me by organizations participating in both
case studies. Material provided through these contacts included public literature, including
material posted on internet sites, and internal documents.
A third source was local media coverage of assessment events. Three media sources, Grass
Roots Newspaper, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and the Winnipeg Free Press, were
consulted for news stories related to the Wuskwatim projects EA; the Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation and News North Services were consulted for coverage related to the Snap Lake
project.
3.2.2
Participant observation
A second technique was participant observation. Participant observation contributes to

qualitative research in a number of ways (Bernard, 1994), including
providing an opportunity to collect different types of data such as human interaction and
relations,
decreasing the probability of reactivity, where participants change behaviour during

research,
developing thoughtful and informed research questions, and,
42
providing an understanding of what is happening in the environment.
I took a passive approach to participant observation (Merriam, 1998). I attended the first five
weeks of hearings for the Wuskwatim projects EA, located in Winnipeg (17 days)8 and
Thompson (2 days)9. This allowed me to meet and engage in dialogue with participants outside
a one-one interview setting, observe human interaction, including vocal intonation and body
language, not recorded in transcripts, and develop a preliminary understanding of the assessment
environment. This experience contributed to my identifying research participants, observing
interaction between assessment participants, and identify my themes and issues of interest as the
review process was conducted. Attending the hearings allowed me to observe key animators,
who were not always recorded in transcripts.
3.2.3
Interviews
Prior to the selection of each case study, brief meetings were held with representatives of key
participating organizations to establish the suitability of the case study, and the interest of
assessment animators (policy actors). To this end, I met with eight representatives of the federal
government, the independent hearing body and participant organizations in Winnipeg in June
2003, and in Yellowknife in February 2004.
Semi-structured interviews were subsequently conducted with EA participants in 2004. Lasting
between 30 and 90 minutes, I met with 14 people in Yellowknife between August and
September, 200410 and 17 people in Winnipeg between October and December 2004. Twentysix interviews were tape recorded and transcribed; notes were taken during five interviews.
Purposeful, stratified sampling was used ensure that participants represented each type of
organization. While this sampling technique is important to ensure that populations are
represented in the research, it runs the risk of having under representation of any group. Indeed,
this was the case with this research design. Figure 3.2 illustrates the affiliation of research
participants, and shows that non-state, corporate actors are under represented. Two proponents,
Manitoba Hydro, and Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation, did not participate. This lack of
81 attended hearing in Winnipeg on March 1,2,3,8,9,10,15,16,17,18,19, and April 6, 7, 8,13,14,15,
2004.
9 I attended hearings in Thompson on March 22 and 23, 2004.
10 One interview was conducted by telephone in January, 2005.
43
representation is a function of timing. Preliminary discussions with Manitoba Hydro suggested

that the corporation was interested in this study. However, because this research was conducted
prior to the completion of the regulatory process, Manitoba Hydro declined to be involved as it
did not want to let the regulator know what it thought of the process before its license was
issued. Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation did not respond to my request for an interview. As
discussed in Chapter 6, lack of representation by productive actors makes it impossible to draw
conclusions about how these types of organizations learn through EA. Where possible, however,
elements of organizational learning drawn primarily from the literature, and complemented by
data identified by De Beers Canada Inc., are discussed.
Topics addressed during these interviews included the EA process, how organizations
approached participation, and individual and organizational learning outcomes. Specific
questions posed to research participants are included in Appendix A.
16
14
12
10
i Snap Lake project
8
l Wuskwatim projects
4
2
Tribunal
Government
Public Actors
Corporate Actors
Figure 3.2: Affiliation of research participants.
3.3
Analysis
Data were organized using QSR Nvivo, an electronic qualitative analysis and database software
system (QSR, 1999-2002). Information was coded and sorted based on themes relevant to the
study. Categories were derived from the theoretical framework, presented in Chapter 2, and
were based on a grounded approach, where themes not previously highlighted by the framework,
but repeated in research documentation, were also noted. Although the unit of analysis in each
case is the organization, as noted in Chapter 2 organizational learning involves four elements:
44
the individual, the organization, the learning environment, and the relationship between EA and
learning. In presenting the findings, however, care was taken to ensure the confidentiality of
participants. Because both EAs were situated in small communities, identifying the locale and
affiliation of any participant could compromise confidentiality. Findings related to individual
learning, and the learning environment, are developed for each specific case study, without
differentiation of responses by type of organization (Chapters 4 and 5). Findings related to
organizational learning and the relationship between EA and learning are developed by type of
organization, without differentiation by geographic locale (Chapter 6). As discussed above,
given the affiliation of research participants, this analysis focuses on governments,
administrative tribunals and public actors (non-governmental organizations).
3.3.1
Parameters
As mentioned in Chapter 2, the assumptions that frame the conceptualization of opportunities for
learning through participation in EA include the following:
EA can be used as a tool for sustainable development,
public participation is a critical component of the EA process,
learning is both a precondition for and an outcome of consultation,
the public has a capacity to learn (Fiorino, 1989),
learning occurs at many levels, including the individual, and organizational levels, and
learning may lead to sustainability.
Beyond these assumptions, however, the research is limited in:
the small sample size of each case study (Wuskwatim projects n=l 7, Snap Lake project
n=14),
the data presented in the analysis are necessarily limiting, as the complete text of the
interviews are not provided, and,
that data presented in the analysis reflect the specific focus identified by the researcher.
45
To address these limitations, multiple steps were taken to establish the trustworthiness of the
research.
3.3.2
Trustworthiness
According to Merriam (1998), trustworthiness relies on ethical investigation techniques, and

establishing the validity, reliability, and generalizability of the research findings. With respect to
investigation techniques, the research proposal was reviewed by the University of Waterloo
Office of Research Ethics, and the Aurora Institute in Inuvik, NWT, to ensure that the study
process minimized the potential for harm arising from this study, both to the participants and the
researcher. Participation in this study was voluntary. Respondents could refuse to answer
questions or withdraw from the research at any time. Participants were familiar with the
research objectives, and assured of the confidential nature of responses. Finally, participants
were sent a copy of the draft findings of this study in March 200511. In soliciting comments
about the findings, participants were asked to consider if the material reflected their experience
with the assessment process. Five participants from the EA of the Wuskwatim projects EA, and
no participants from the EA of the Snap Lake project responded to this request. While all
participants who reviewed the findings felt that the material adequately represented their
interviews, some provided additional observations about specific criteria. Where appropriate,
these comments are discussed in the body of the text.
Internal validity of findings was protected through the use of two strategies, triangulation, and
interview reliability. Triangulation is meant to minimize research bias by ensuring that findings
reflect reality (internal validity), and are reliable (replicable). Multiple sources of data, including
the responses of different participations, and different datasets (document reviews, participant
observation, interviews) were utilized to address each criterion. With respect to interview
reliability, interviews were tape recorded and transcribed, as described in section 3.2.3. As
indicated above, member checks were completed, thereby providing participants an opportunity
to review draft findings. Generalizability was supported through the use of two case studies, as
discussed in section 3.1.1.
u Participants from the Wuskwatim EA were sent sections 4.5,4.6. 4.7, 6.1 and 6.2 on February 28th.
Comments were requested by March 18th. Participants from the Snap Lake EA were sent sections 5.5,
5.6, 5.7,6.1 and 6.2 on March 3rd. Comments were requested by March 21st.
46
3.4
Conclusion
In this chapter, I described the approach taken to address the research questions identified in
Chapter 1. Grounded in critical social science, this research employed comparative case studies
to address the research question and objectives, as discussed in section 3.1. The EAs of two
concurrent but geographically separate projects, the Wuskwatim projects in northern Manitoba,
and the Snap Lake project in the Northwest Territories, served as case studies.
Data collection included document reviews, participant observation, and interviews, as described
in section 3,2. Analysis, discussed in section 3.3, relied on the theoretical framework presented
in Chapter 2, supplemented through a grounded approach to the identification of themes.
Trustworthiness of data was established through three practices. The research proposal was
submitted to University of Waterloo Office of Research Ethics, and the Aurora Institute in
Inuvik, NWT contributed to ethical investigation techniques. Internal validity of findings was
protected through the use of multiple sources of data, and member checks.
47
Chapter
THE WUSKWATIM GENERATION STATION AND TRANSMISSION LINES

PROJECTS
In this chapter, I introduce the Wuskwatim projects, and briefly summarizing the projects
description, including identifying the proponents. A short review of the relevant industrial
history, which includes hydro electric development in Manitoba and recent EA experience,
situates these projects and their EA in provincial development experience. A review of the
process used to assess the hydro development follows.
Opportunities for learning arising from participation in this project are then reviewed. This
portion of the analysis includes consideration of criteria related to the individual (participatory,
situated, critical and individual outcomes), and the learning environment (inclusiveness,
argumentation, equity and policy-oriented learning). This discussion illustrates that while this
process included many opportunities for interactive policy making, participants were often
unable to come to a shared understanding of basic assessment definitions, and common
depictions of assessment activities. Likewise, participants had varied evaluative experiences
with the EA process. These experiences, in turn, contributed to individual and policy-oriented
learning outcomes associated with the projects. In Chapter 6, results will be compared with
those of the Snap Lake project.
4.1
The project
The Wuskwatim project, if built, will be located 45 km southwest of Thompson, Manitoba at

Taskinigup Falls, the outlet of Wuskwatim Lake (see figure 4.1). The proposed project involves
the construction of a low head, modified run of the river dam producing 200 megawatts of
electricity, and three 230 kV transmission line segments, totaling 247 km. Power generated at
Wuskwatim will be available for export until 2020, when it is projected that Manitobas firm
energy demand will require energy generated at Wuskwatim.
48
NUNAVUT
Hudson Bay
Churchill
II
CA N AD A
I ;
ft.-
r?
Southern
Indian L
ChU<"
# S o u th In d ian Lake
'
.x-J
Split Lake
. S J ~ :,j
'-i Nelson;
SASKATCHEWAN
i\ H*OUM"--Thompsqh
' .'' >;
5r
J5
Wuskwatim
Generating Station
". U
k, /
1-
'"
*L
* Cross
k fi
Lake
\% CU'> r.y?M r
i---
c 7
i,
j,-sr
:/
:i,
H ouse
'
'VfXL
M'
/' J
' W(C ji' lNorway

' J>
!ii
r:
; Wton/peg ,
MANITOBA
n
LEGEND
_ Provincial capital
a Other populated places
, ' ' I\ I ,J
\
14 A i?u'.
_ . _
Provincial boundary
iA
\ Manitoba
'
- ''
Winnipeg O
ft
I
!
ri
c
i
Jl
S cale
75
km I i i I
75
.1
150
225
I km
h ttp://atlas.gc.ca
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
International boundary
20 0 2 , H er M ajesty th e Q ueen in R ight o f C an ad a, N atural R eso u rces C anada.
Figure 4.1: Location of the Wuskwatim generation station (Natural Resources

Canada, 2002).
49
In addition to the generation station and transmission line segments, the project components
include an access road and construction camp. Impacts of the project could affect, but are not
limited to, air quality and climate, sedimentation, soil and debris, water and water quality, fish,
fish habitat, and mercury, terrestrial habitat and plants, wildlife, resource use, economy,
infrastructure and social services, community life, heritage and cultural resources.
The proponents of this project are Manitoba Hydro and the Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation
(NCN). Manitoba Hydro, created in 1961, is a crown corporation, a publicly owned utility
responsible to the provincial government, but operating as a separate entity (Manitoba Hydro &
Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation, 2003a). As noted in the environmental impact statement, The
Utilitys mandate is to provide continuous, reliable and economical energy and services
(electricity and natural gas) to the citizens of the Province of Manitoba (Manitoba Hydro &
Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation, 2003a, p. 1-7). Manitoba Hydro is responsible for meeting
current and future energy demands in the province. As Manitoba Hydro is a crown corporation
with control of Manitobas power grid, the citizens of Manitoba have a unique relationship with
this company; they are both shareholders and customers of the utility. Furthermore, as a crown
corporation, the government of Manitoba is ultimately both the project regulator and proponent.
The Wuskwatim Generation Station is situated in the traditional territory or resource
management area of the NCN. In 2001, the community approved an agreement in principle to
work with Manitoba Hydro to develop the Wuskwatim generation station; in practice, this
agreement may involve a limited partnership with Manitoba Hydro. Subject to a final
referendum, scheduled for Spring 2005, the NCN has the option of purchasing 33 'A %
ownership of the project. Therefore, the community (through Chief and Council) acted as a co
proponent of the project throughout the EA.
4.2
The context
Manitoba has been exploiting its water resources for the purpose of hydroelectric generation for
over a century. The first dam, the Minnedosa River plant, was a privately financed facility,
operating between 1900 and 1924 (Manitoba Hydro, circa 2002). The next 60 years saw the
continued development of the Minnedosa River (Minnedosa hydro plant) and of the Winnipeg
River (Pinewa generation station, Point du Bois generating station, Seven Sisters generating
50
station, Slave Falls generating station, Pine Falls generating station, and McArthur generating
station). It was not until the 1960s, however, that the focus of hydro development turned north.
The first northern initiative, the Kelsey generation station, went into service on June 23,1960.
This facility, located on the Nelson River, involved five 32 MW generators, which supplied
power to the Inco town site, mine and mill complex in Thompson. Although the Kelsey station
is significant because it was the first dam development in northern Manitoba, the impacts of this
project were dwarfed by Manitoba Hydros northern construction activities during the next 30
years. Further dam developments on the Nelson and Saskatchewan Rivers created a power
legacy that, for good and bad, remains to this day with the crown corporation.
4.2.1
Grand Rapids Dam
The Grand Rapids Dam, located on the Saskatchewan River, officially opened in 1965. By the
time the project achieved full production in 1968, the output reached 472 MW. Although this
level of power is small in comparison to modem hydro electric projects, in 1960 this dam
represented a major engineering feat (Waldram, 1988). The giant Kaplan turbines and
generators at Grand Rapids were the largest installed in North American for this size of
operating head, (Manitoba Hydro, circa 2002, p.31). To create this capacity, a sizable forebay
was needed; consequently, the level of Cedar Lake was increased by approximately 3.5 metres.
Cedar Lake, however, was also the site of Chemawain, a First Nation reserve and Mdtis
community. Therefore, construction required the relocation of the entire community, and the
reestablishment of the reserve at Easterville.
Waldram (1988) provides a chronology of events surrounding the development of this hydro
facility, including the community relocation, and a critical analysis of the gross inadequacies of
the development process. Some of the key issues noted include:
fragmented communication between the community and the committee charged by

government to share information with Chemawain,
the decision to construct the facility was a foregone conclusion; community input would
n o t sto p th e d e v e lo p m e n t,
the federal government did not exercise its fiduciary responsibility to protect the
interests of the community,
51
the community did not have legal representation during the negotiation of the relocation
agreement, and,
the terms of the agreement were not met.
The site of Easterville was very different from Chemawin. According to York (1990), the site
was chosen because of its proximity to the south, rather than its living conditions. The reserve
area was rock and gravel, surrounded by muskeg and swamp. The economic productivity of the
community collapsed. Damming of the lake resulted in a 93% reduction in fish catches, and
finally the closure of the fisheries due to mercury contamination. Disruption of terrestrial
systems made hunting challenging. These impacts were exacerbated by the relocation of the
community to depressing and unproductive land.
The discussion of the Grand Rapids Dam does not end at any one point in time. The people of
Chemawin have been struggling for 40 years to seek restitution for the project, and create new a
path for the community. On March 26,2004, during testimony at the hearing regarding the
Wuskwatim projects, Chief Clarence Easter noted
Tomorrow, after 40 years... we are having ... signing ceremonies in Chemawawin.
We started a new relationship with the Province of Manitoba and Manitoba Hydro.
It took 40 years to get there and I'm glad that we have taken the first steps to do
that. This partnership, as I see it - like don't know too much about it ~ but in
principle, you know, it would be a model for collaboration. Aboriginal nations
have direct, meaningful, and proactive input. I really believe in that. (Wuskwatim
Generation and Transmission Project, 2004, p.3609)
4.2,2
Churchill River Diversion
Extensive development of the Nelson River soon followed the Grand Rapids Dam. The
Churchill River Diversion project involved the transfer of water from the Churchill River into
the Nelson River. Water from the Churchill River was diverted into South Indian Lake through
a control structure (Missi Falls and transferred into the Nelson River through a blasted channel
and a second water control structures (Noitgi). This new water regime contributes to 3,500
MW of generation at three downstream stations on the Lower Nelson River: Kettle Rapids, Long
Spruce and Limestone (Manitoba Hydro & Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation, 2003b).
Construction o f this infrastructure caused significant environmental impacts. As with the Grand
Rapids project, the development process for the Churchill River Diversion was inadequate in
that there was a belief that construction was a foregone conclusion, and the federal government
52
did not exercise its fiduciary responsibility to protect the interests of the community. However,
significant differences in process existed due to increasing interest by the public (Waldram,
1988):
given the experience of the Chemawain Cree, described in section 4.2.1, communities
were more aware of business tactics of the crown corporation,
the environmental impact of the project went beyond South Indian Lake, which allowed
for increased group action,
the general public was more aware of the proposal, particularly groups from the
University of Manitoba, and a coalition of church groups called The Friends of
Churchill, and,
legal counsel was provided to the community by the government prior to relocation.
However, these remedies did not create a system of interactive policy making, or meet the
evolving understanding of fiduciary obligations and consultation with First Nations
communities. As noted in the Royal Commission on Aboriginal People (1996, Part 2, section
4.3).
The Churchill River Diversion has subsequently become well known for its massive
scale and detrimental effects on the northern Manitoba environment and the
Aboriginal peoples who live there. Although the project directly affected the lands
and livelihood of five treaty communities (York Factory, Nelson House, Norway
House, Cross Lake and Split Lake) and one non-treaty community (South Indian
Lake), they were not consulted, nor did they give approval for the undertaking.
The diversion of the river resulted in changes to patterns of distribution, range, and rate of the
flow of the water (Larcombe, 1995). The impacts of this infrastructure project were devastating.
These changes affected, among others:
biophysical components (in addition to water), including soils,
biological process, flora and fauna, including those found in soils, vegetation and
watered areas,
social systems, including changes in community landscape, recreational values, and

disruptions to social systems,
53
cultural environments, including loss of artifacts and cultural sites, traditional

knowledge related to environmental processes,
economic processes, including communities use of resources which affect income in

kind and cash income, and,
pursuits, activities and lifestyles of the Northern Manitobans due to adverse effects
arising from the development and continued operation of the modified water regime.
To address the impacts of the Churchill River Diversion, Manitoba Hydro, the government of
Canada and the government of Manitoba negotiated the Northern Flood Agreement with
representatives of five First Nation communities - Nelson House, Norway House, Cross Lake,
Split Lake, and York Factory. Signed in 1977, this agreement includes articles regarding the
quality of water (section 6), environmental impacts (section 17), employment (section 21) and
minimization of damage (section 10).
In the 1990s, implementation agreements, needed to refine the obligations of the signatories to
the Northern Flood Agreement, were successfully negotiated with four of the five First Nations
party to the Northern Flood Agreement, as well as with the five other communities affected by
hydro development. These agreements set out, among others, requirements related to water
levels and flows, compensation and easements, fee simple lands, compensation for claims, and
arbitration procedures. In addition, the agreements established a basic protocol for interaction
between Manitoba and the signatory First Nation with respect to future development of hydro
electric resources in the resource management area. With a renewed interest in hydro electric
development in northern Manitoba, marked by the EA of the Wuskwatim projects, this protocol
is significant for establishing a minimum standard of interaction between Manitoba Hydro and
northern First Nation communities.
4.2.3
History of environmental assessment in Manitoba
The Environment Act (1987) and accompanying regulations provide a legislative framework for
environmental management in Manitoba, including EA. All developments, both public and
private, that have the potential to cause adverse environmental effects are subject to assessment
before construction begins. In Manitoba, EA involves five steps, three of which are mandatory,
as noted by an asterisk:
54
proponent files a proposal (*),
proposal is screened (*),
proponent required to provide further information,
opportunity for public hearings, and,
licensing decision (*).
The legislation and associated regulations identify three classes of assessment. Class 1
developments are those with potential effects that result primarily from the discharge of
pollutants. Class 2 developments are those whose impacts are primarily unrelated to pollution or
are in addition to pollution. Class 3 developments are those which are believed to have effects
which are of such a magnitude or which generate such a number of environment issues that it is
as an exceptional project [sic] (Environment Act (1987) of Manitoba section 1(2)). For class 2
and 3 developments, the Minister of Conservation may seek a public hearing, facilitated by the
Clean Environment Commission (CEC), an arms length body established under the
Environment Act.
The CEC, in creating a public review, may include the following activities:
pre hearing meetings, to finalize the hearing agenda,
pre hearing conference, to facilitate exchanges of information between participants and

to clarify issues, and,
informal hearings.
Between 1994 and 2004, the CEC held 12 hearings for the purpose of facilitating public
participation in EA (Table 4.1). As can be inferred from Table 4.1, there is a modest but
growing experience in using the provincial public hearing process. However, as often noted
throughout the EA, the Wuskwatim projects set a number of precedents, by being the first:
hearings for an EA of a generating station,
h a rm o n iza tio n o f th e C E C and P u b lic U tility B oard (P U B ) p r o c e sse s (d isc u sse d b e lo w ),
implementation of the Canada - Manitoba Agreement on Environmental Assessment

Cooperation (2000) (discussed below),
55
northern EA completed since the four implementation agreements to the Northern Flood
Agreement were negotiated,
Manitoba assessment for which the CEC was invited to facilitate public comment on the
scope of the assessment,
EA in which the majority of public participants was from First Nations, and
hydro development to include a First Nation as a co-proponent.
Given these conditions, the hearings for the Wuskwatim projects served as a greenfield
assessment process. The number of unique events surrounding the Wuskwatim projects set this
review apart from previous assessments conducted in the province.
Table 4.1: Provincial hearings to facilitate public involvement in EA between 1994
and 2004.
Pembina Valley Regional Water Supply Proposal (1994)______________________________

Louisiana-Pacific Corporation Oriented Strand Board Plant (1994)______________________
Browning Ferris Industries Integrated Waste Management Facility (1995)_________________
Asessippi Ski Hill Project (1995)_________________________________________________
Solid Waste Management - Capital Region (1995)___________________________________
Louisiana-Pacific Canada Ltd. Ten Year Forest Management Plan (1996)_________________
Tolko Manitoba Inc. Forest Management Plan (1997)_________________________________
Town of Carman Abatement Project (1999)_____________________________________ ___
Simplot Canada Limited Potato Processing Plant and City of Portage la Prairie Water Pollution
Control Facility Alterations (2002)_____
City of Winnipeg Wastewater Treatment and Collection System (2003)__________________
Rural Municipality of Brokenhead Water/Sewer Infrastructure Project (2003)______________
Wuskwatim Generation Station and Transmission Lines Projects (2004)
4.3
Environmental assessment process
As noted above, the Wuskwatim projects triggered reviews by three separate bodies:
the PUB (Manitoba) was charged with reviewing the justification, need for and
alternatives to the project.
th e D ep artm en t o f C o n serv a tio n fa cilita ted an E A u n d er the term s o f th e M an itob a
Environment Act (1987). The generation station triggered a class three assessment, and
the transmission lines triggered a class two assessment under the Manitoba Environment
56
Act. As part of this review process, the CEC was directed to gather public comment on
the assessment guidelines, and later hold public hearings about the project impact
statement.
the Department of Fisheries and Oceans triggered a federal EA of the generation station
under the terms of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (1992), stemming from
the projects need for fisheries authorization, which involves permission for modifying
fish habitat.
To avoid duplication of efforts, regulators attempted to harmonize their separate review

processes. As noted by Fitzpatrick & Sinclair (in press), harmonization involves the
rationalization of EA processes by coordinating the legislative frameworks prescribed by
different jurisdictions so that a project undergoes one review.
In April 2003, the Minister of Conservation requested that the CEC revise its terms of reference
to include issues traditionally considered in the purview of the Public Utilities Board. To
facilitate this broader scope, two members of the Public Utilities Board were temporarily
appointed as members of the CEC panel charged with conducting the hearings.
To coordinate the review process between levels of government (federal/provincial), the parties
invoked the Canada - Manitoba Agreement on Environmental Assessment Cooperation (2000),
an agreement designed to implement the principles of the Canada-Wide Accord on
Environmental Harmonization (the Accord) and the Sub-Agreement on Environmental
Assessment. Under these agreements, the two jurisdictions coordinated common steps in their
respective EA processes (e.g. the development of EIS guidelines, a technical review of
documentation). This harmonization was facilitated by the project administration team (PAT).
For example, as an impact statement was required under both assessment processes, the federal
and provincial governments contributed to the development of the impact statement guidelines.
Both levels of government also contributed to a common technical review of the project.
However, since hearings were identified as an important component of the provincial review, but
not required for the federal process, the federal government did not participate in the hearings.
A timeline of the key activities surrounding the EA of the Wuskwatim Projects is provided in
Table 4.2. Timing of the assessment processes necessitated the completion of this dissertation
prior to the completion of the federal comprehensive study, and any subsequent project licensing
57
decisions. Therefore, the focus of this research is on the provincial EA process, as triggered by
the submission of project applications in December 2001, and ending with the public release of
the Clean Environment Commission report in October 2004.
Table 4.2: Timeline of events in the review of the Wuskwatim generation station and
transmission lines projects.
Development of impact statement

2001
September
Agreement in Principle signed between Manitoba Hydro

and NCN, September 21st
Project proposals submitted, December 7a

2002
January
Scoping meetings, hosted by the CEC, February 11th, 12th,
18th, 19th
Final guidelines issued, April 29th
April
October
2003
January
April
C
C/5
O
w
C
CO
O
<
t
&
Minister of Conservation requests hearing by the CEC

Revised Guidelines issued, April 9th
Environmental Impact Statement submitted, April 30th
July
October
2004
January
Participant funding awarded, July 14th

Pre hearing conference, July 28th
PCN motion hearing, September 30th
Decision regarding PCN motion, October 6th
Pre Hearing motion hearing (disclosure), January 23rd
Public Hearings, March 1 - June 9
April
Commission decision, September 22'nd
October
2005
58
Although meant to streamline the review of the Wuskwatim projects, harmonization was a cause
for some level of uncertainty surrounding the assessment process, as is discussed below.
It is important here to note that this EA shares key steps in the assessment process with the
second case study, including scoping issues leading to creation of environmental impact
statement guidelines, the completion of a technical review of the environmental impact
statement, including a written exchange of questions and answers (IRs), and, public hearings.
4.4
Definitive aspects: Establishing shared meaning
4.4.1
Desocializing: How was the public engaged in the assessment process?
This assessment process presented a number of venues and opportunities through which the
public could participate in the EA. Participation was encouraged through:
opportunity to provide written, and verbal submissions regarding the scope of the
assessment,
written submissions regarding the conformity of the impact statement to the guidelines,
written questions and answers regarding the impact statement, called Interrogatories
(IRs), and
verbal presentations, supported by written material during 32 days of hearings.
Forty-two organizations and numerous individuals were engaged in the CEC review of the
Wuskwatim generating station and transmission lines projects. The CEC identified two classes
of interveners in the process. Presenters spoke only during the formal hearing proceedings,
while participants were actively involved in the EA during the hearings and in the pre hearing
activities and meetings. Table 4.3 lists organizations involved as presenters or participants
during the review.
In addition to providing opportunities for involvement in the assessment, steps should be taken
to encourage active public participation (Fitzpatrick & Sinclair, 2003). Factors that contribute
both positively and negatively to the public engagement program in the EA of the Wuskwatim
projects will be discussed throughout this dissertation, and include the:
allocation of participant assistance (discussed in section 4.2.2),

59
location of assessment activities (discussed in section 4.5.1.3),
timing of the hearings (discussed in section 4.5.1.3),
adaptations for working in a cross cultural setting (discussed in section 4.5.3.4), and
illustration of how participants contribute to decision making (discussed in sections

4.2.2).
Table 4.3: Organizations involved in the hearings, either as participants or presenters.
PARTICIPANTS
Boreal Forest Network
Community Association of South Indian Lake (*)
and the Centre for Indigenous Environmental
Resources
Consumers Association of Canada/ Manitoba
Society of Seniors (*) and the Public Interest Law
Centre
I Displaced Residents of South Indian Lake
I Manitoba Conservation
Manitoba Future Forest Alliance
Manitoba Hydro
Manitoba Industrial Power Users Group
Manitoba Metis Federation (*)
Manitoba Wildlands / Canadian Nature Federation
(*)
Mosakahiken Cree Nation (*)
NCN
Opaskwayak Cree Nation (*)
O-Pinon-Na-Piwin-Cree Nation
Pimicikamak Cree Nation (*)
Provincial Council of Women of Manitoba
Pukatawagan Fishermens Association (*)
Tataskweyak Cree Nation
Time to Respect Earths Ecosystems/ Resource
Conservation Manitoba (*)
Trap Line No. 18 (*)
PRESENTERS
Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs Secretariat Inc
Building and Construction Trades Council
City of Thompson
Fox Lake Cree Nation

Granville Lake
Inco Thompson
International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers
Keewatin Community College
Manitoba Justice
Manitoba Keewatinook Ininew Okimowin
Manitoba Water Stewardship
NCN Youth Members
Norman Regional Development Corporation
Northern Association of Community Councils
Operating Engineers of Manitoba
Sagkeeng First Nation
Southern Chiefs Organization
Swampy Cree Tribal Council
Thompson Chamber of Commerce
Winnipeg and Manitoba Chambers of
Commerce
York Factory First Nation (*)

(* ) id e n tifie s p articipants w h o r e c e iv e d fu n d in g (s e e se c tio n 4 .5 .2 ).
The EA process was designed to be interactive, in that there were multiple ways and
opportunities for the public to become involved in the review. The number and mix of
60
organizations involved in the assessment, both as participants and presenters, were encouraging,
and is reflective of Webler and Tulers (2000) observation that the public must be able to access
the process.
4.4.2
Participatory: Did individuals contribute to the scope of the
assessment?
The participatory nature of an assessment processes can be considered in terms of the extent to
which the public has an opportunity to contribute to the scope of the review (Fitzpatrick &
Sinclair, 2003). Allowing the public an opportunity to participate in the scope of the assessment
- the agenda of items considered in the review - ensures that the assessment will, to some
degree, consider issues of importance, and contribute to a process that fosters learning.
The draft guidelines for the EA of the Wuskwatim projects were released in December 2001, and
over a 90-day period the public was invited to submit written comments. Concurrent with this
90-day written review period, for the first time in Manitoba, the public was provided with an
opportunity to provide verbal comments. In January 2002, the Minister of the Environment
requested that the CEC host public sessions related to the assessment scope (Clean Environment
Commission, 2002). Four meetings were held in Thompson, NCN, Opaskwayak Cree Nation,
and Winnipeg during February 2002. With an estimated attendance of 220, the CEC received a
total of 23 written and verbal submissions. Table 4.4 identifies organizations which submitted
verbal and/or written comments related to the scope of the assessment.
A comparison of Table 4.3 and Table 4.4 illustrates different organizations were involved in
shaping the project guidelines, and acted as hearing participants/ presenters. As shown in Table
4.4, only 11 organizations involved in the hearings contributed to the development of guidelines,
two of which were the project proponents. Ten participant organizations, and 16 presenter
groups, were not involved.
In some cases, the decision to participate in the assessment occurred after the guidelines were
finalized. For example, the original EIS guidelines did not include the need for and alternatives
to portion of the assessment, aspects traditionally addressed through PUB hearings.
Organizations interested in this part of the review did not become involved in the CEC process
until April 2003, following the harmonization of the two processes. Therefore, these
61
organizations were not aware of their possible interest in the EA during the development of the
guidelines.
Other groups may have been unable to participate due to a lack of funding. As noted by one
organization, although participant assistance was provided for the EA, it was not available
during the development of the EIS guidelines. Therefore, some organizations may have lacked
the capacity to participate in the process (Interview 15). Finally, even when organizations were
involved in the development of the scope of the assessment, individuals may not have been. In
the 24 months between the development of the guidelines and the hearings, some organizations
experienced staffing changes. Therefore, while the public was provided with an opportunity to
contribute to the assessment agenda, many individuals involved in the hearing were not engaged
in this part of the process. Data are not currently available to indicate why three organizations
contributing to the scope of the review did not participate in the hearings; research directed to
understanding non-participants, similar to that completed by Diduck & Sinclair (2002), would
perhaps find this to be an appropriate case.
Table 4.4: Submissions regarding the scope of the assessment (Clean Environment
Commission, 2002; Manitoba Conservation, 2002a).
ORAL AND WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS TO THE

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS TO
MANITOBA CONSERVATION
CEC
Canadian Nature Federation (**)
Anishinaabe Turtle Island Protectors
City of Thompson (*)
Canadian Nature Federation (**)
Manitoba Hydro (**)
Ducks Unlimited Canada
Manitobas Future Forest Alliance (**)
Federal Government
NCN Chief and Council (**)
Natural Resources Canada
O-Pipon-Na-Piwin Cree Nation (**)
Environment Canada
South Indian Lake Community Council (**)
Health Canada
Tataskweyak Cree Nation (**)
Fisheries & Oceans Canada
Time to Research Earths Ecosystems (**)
Manitobas Future Forest Alliance (**)
Town of Snow Lake
Provincial Government
Aboriginal & Northern Affairs
Industry Trade & Mines
Intergovernmental Affairs
Manitoba Conservation (**)
(**) indicates organizations identified as participants in the hearings.
(*) indicates organizations identified as presenters in the hearings
The project administration team provided a point-by-point response to suggested changes to the
guidelines (Manitoba Conservation, 2002a). As noted in Figure 4.3, the majority of comments
62
was believed to be addressed in the draft guidelines. One example of a comment believed to be
addressed in the draft guidelines was an observation by Ducks Unlimited Canada that the EA
should consider effects to waterfowl and non-waterfowl species. A second example was the
suggestion by the Future Forest Alliance that there was a need to include requirements to assess
impacts from climate change in order to assess possible effects to hydrologic flow characteristics
and reservoir levels.
Twenty-three suggestions were not accepted. Comments not addressed in the revised guidelines
include:
issues considered outside the project assessment (including proposed changes to funding
programs, scoping process, and implementation of COSDI report), and,
changes to the Wuskwatim project review process (including proposed changes to the
harmonization process, the type of federal review, and inclusion of additional projects in
the review).
No, 23
Y es,15
Already included, 139
Figure 4.3: Action taken by PAT on the 177 comments received regarding the EIS
guidelines. Numbers noted beside each caption are the numbers, not proportions.
A co m p a riso n b e tw e e n th e draft and fin a l g u id e lin e s rev e a ls th ree m ain c h a n g e s. R e v ise d
guidelines served to clarify the process by developing the description of the Project
Administrative Team and providing additional detail about the provincial review. Requirements
to detail the significance of impacts, including the need to describe how significance was
63
established, were included. Third, traditional knowledge was included as a source of credible
technical information.
Although the guidelines reflected public comments about specific interests regarding the
assessment process, concerns about the scope persisted throughout the review. The most
enduring concern related to the temporal and geographic scope of the assessment. Some
individuals and organizations requested that the assessment include consideration of the existing
hydro electric system, including the Churchill River Diversion, the Lake Winnipeg Regulation,
and the Nelson River, as the Wuskwatim generation station would rely on this infrastructure,
which had never been subject to an EA. When this was not included as part of the EIS
guidelines, the PCN presented a motion to expand the scope of the assessment to include both
the existing and future hydro electric infrastructure. The CEC decision regarding the motion
observed that the project under consideration is the proposed generation station, not the water
system on which that development relies. Nonetheless, the CEC suggested that it could consider
system-wide impacts during discussion of cumulative impacts.
[I]n keeping with past practice, the CEC will broadly interpret the Terms of
Reference provided to it by the Minister, and will consider cumulative impacts of
the development in accordance with the Environmental Impact Statement
Guidelines on existing and future projects and activities, as well as alternatives
{Decision regarding the Pimicikamak Cree Nation Motion Respecting The
Wuskwatim Generation and Transmission Project, 2003, p.3).
This theme - the role of historic development - in the assessment echoed throughout the
hearings. As noted by one participant, a number of issues [raised] were outside the specific
EA, but relevant to northern communities (Interview 28). The following quotation illustrates
some of the dialogue surrounding this decision.
But the Churchill River Diversion and its operations, including the Augmented
Flow Program, which are probably the most influential projects existing in the
immediate area of the Wuskwatim Generation Station, were excluded from the
cumulative effects assessment. This is unacceptable practice, which has resulted in
questionable judgments and the potential for missed effects and missed
opportunities for mitigation. This decision to exclude the CRD [Churchill River
Diversion] and AFP [Augmented Flow Program] as existing projects allowed
Manitoba Hydro to avoid studying a regional area as required by a proper
cumulative effects assessment. Further, this approach has the result of totally
excluding the residents of South Indian Lake from the cumulative effects
assessment {Wuskwatim Generation and Transmission Project, 2004, p.7417).
64
Beyond questions surrounding the temporal and geographic scope of the assessment, issues
arose regarding the wording of specific clauses in the guidelines. As noted by three participants,
merging the PUB mandate with the CEC hearings following the finalization of the assessment
guidelines resulted in unclear wording related to the justification and need for components of the
assessment (Interviews 21, 23, and 25). The terms of reference direct the CEC to include
consideration of
[T]he effect, if any, of the Wuskwatim Proposals on Manitoba Hydro customer
rates and the Corporations financial stability. The partnership between the
Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation and Manitoba Hydro and the associated arrangements
for such partnership are to be described to the degree such information is required
to understand the financial analysis (Clean Environment Commission, 2004, p.130).
Interpretation of this clause suggests the assessment should consider the economics of the
project from the perspective of the partnership, but not specifically from the perspective of either
proponent - Manitoba Hydro or NCN (Interview 23). While in many EAs the economic
viability of a project is left to the discretion of the proponent, as Manitoba Hydro is a crown
corporation, citizens, as shareholders, have an interest in understanding the economic impact of
the partnership arrangement (Interviews 21,23,25). This issue contributed to recommendation
6.3, which advised that in the future, Manitoba Hydros EA applications include an analysis of
the project internal rate of return for both the project and the crown corporation (Clean
Environment Commission, 2004, p. 122).
The third area of concern regarding scope focused specifically on the assessment panel. As
noted above, the EA was harmonized under the terms of the Canada - Manitoba Agreement on
Environmental Assessment Cooperation (2000). From the outset, an active campaign was
launched to change the assessment process to a harmonized panel review (Interview 15,26). In
this venue, all steps of the assessment would have been coordinated through an independent
panel, struck by the federal and provincial governments. Furthermore, both levels of
government would have been involved in all stages of the assessment. Finally, as suggested by
two participants, a harmonized panel would have increased perceptions of fairness surrounding
the review process, in that the province would not be facilitating a review of a project to which it
ultimately served as proponent. The following quotation, taken from the hearing transcript,
illustrates these themes:
65
The preferred process we would have liked would have been a full federal panel
review of the Wuskwatim project. There is a clear absence of a federal presence in
this room and throughout this hearing process and clearly there are federal
jurisdictional issues here that are not being addressed (Wuskwatim Generation and
Transmission Project, 2004, p.7554).
When reviewing data surrounding the scope of the Wuskwatim project EA, it is important to
acknowledge that the public was provided with unprecedented (provincially) levels of
participation in developing the scope of the assessment; that the CEC was engaged to facilitate
public participation in this process is to be commended. However, participant reflection
regarding this component illustrates difficulties that may arise in the steps between theory and
application. The length of time among the issuance of EIS guidelines, the receipt of the impact
statement, and the hearings contributed to changing patterns of public participation. Exacerbated
by a flexible assessment process that saw the harmonization of the provincial CEC and PUB
hearings meant that, although the guidelines were extensive, they did not meet the needs of
many of the participants.
Additional steps may be necessary to ensure that participants are comfortable in the framework,
and that they agree with the scope of the assessment. This observation is particularly pertinent
given the period of time between the issuance of EIS guidelines and submission of the impact
statement. Although the process should not penalize the proponent for taking the time necessary
to meet the EIS guidelines, in cases where six month lapses occur between the events it may be
wise to include a brief (e.g. 2 week) period for participants to review the assessment guidelines
to ensure that key themes are included. This exercise is necessary, however, in cases where dual
processes are harmonized following the issuance of final guidelines. Significant changes in
process that result in the inclusion of a new set of public participants necessitate a (minor)
review of assessment guidelines. Although a common understanding and agreement of the
scope of the assessment may never be achieved, all possible steps should be taken to allow this
to develop.
Although completing the seriatim review of the scoping submissions can illustrate how the
government responds to public comment, in this case only minor changes were made to the final
guidelines. As such, this exercise did not successfully illustrate how public comment
contributed to assessment decisions. If, in future EAs, it is felt that over 80% of the comments
66
reflect existing points in the draft guidelines, documentation should specify where and how these
requests are addressed.
4.4.3
Discussion
Numerous opportunities were available to members of the public to be engaged in the EA of the
Wuskwatim project. Beyond being engaged in the review, however, participants were
encouraged to contribute to the scope of the assessment through a critique of draft guidelines.
Although not a new step in the review process, the scoping exercise was expanded to include
public meetings, facilitated by the CEC. In doing this, the process became more participatory in
nature, as assessment participants were able to contribute their learning agenda to the overall
process.
Despite these efforts, assessment guidelines and the participants beliefs regarding what should
be addressed in the review were inconsistent. Although multiple aspects contributed to these
different perspectives, the end result is that participants did not share a common understanding
as to what the EA should address. This case reiterates Petts (2003) observation that public
participation in the framing of issues is key to effective analytical-deliberative processes such as
EA by illustrating potential repercussions of not having a common agenda. It also reaffirms the
role of learners in developing the learning agenda (Preskill & Torres, 1999; Shor, 1993). This
lack of shared meaning about the scope of the assessment meant that many participants were
continually trying to renegotiate language and terms; this, in turn detracted from efforts to
achieve consensus on regulative and representative issues.
These findings contribute to discussion surrounding the need for unlimited participation in
deliberative democratic exercises. Beyond strict access to participatory events, findings support
processes that encourage interaction among participants, thereby allowing for meaningful
participation in the process (Amstein, 1969). However, analysis of the opportunities for
engagement must go beyond evaluating the specific techniques employed, and consider the
responsiveness of the hearing authority. Demonstrating that public input impacts assessment
processes and decisions is important for allowing developing a shared learning agenda, and
contributing to public perceptions of unlimited participation.
67
4.5
Designative aspects: Establishing truth
4.5.1
Situated: Were participants able to access assessment information in a
format that suited their needs?

As noted in Chapter 2, learners should have access to material that is accurate, complete, and
reflective of their needs. In a hearings process, material is generally accessible through three
key gateways: the media, the public registry, and assessment activities. In addition to issues of
access, discussion includes reflection by participants on the accuracy and completeness of the
material.
4.5.1.1
Media
The media are generally the first point of information about an EA. Media coverage, including
print, audio and visual media, serves an important function in an EA, as this tool is important for
ensuring the public is informed about the project, and the EA activities (Fitzpatrick, 2001;
Praxis, 1988). A discussion of press coverage of the Wuskwatim EA focuses on representation
in three key sources: Winnipeg Free Press, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and
Grassroots News. These media outlets were selected because of their province-wide
distribution, varied target audiences, and electronic accessibility. Analysis focuses specifically
on press coverage, rather than including a discussion of paid advertising undertaken as part of
assessment requirements related to notification.
The Winnipeg Free Press has a daily distribution of 126,000 (and Saturday distribution of
172,000) (Information, 2005). In a province with a population of just over 1 million, this level
of readership is significant12. Media coverage of the Wuskwatim EA by the Winnipeg Free
Press, in anticipation of and during the hearings was significant, particularly when compared to
that provided by other media sources. Between July 13,2003 and December 15,200413, 123
articles appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press, including daily coverage (by Helen Fallding) of
selected aspects for 25 days of the hearing.
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, a federal crown corporation, provides radio and
television coverage of Manitoba issues through a regional office, located in Winnipeg. Between
12The W innipeg Free Press is also the main
daily for Northern Ontario communities such as Kenora and
Dry den.
13 The start date reflects the earliest coverage about the project located by the researcher. A s such, each
media source has a different start date.
68
September 26,2001 and December 15,2004, the corporation record indicates 34 pieces related
to the Wuskwatim project, including a seven part series airing in November 2004 that
summarized key project issues.
The Grassroots News is an Aboriginal-owned, bimonthly paper distributed throughout
Manitoba. Between November 2003 and December 15,2004, the paper published 36 articles
about the Wuskwatim EA, providing coverage in every issue between December 2003 and June
2004, discussing preparation for, and participation in, the CEC hearings.
Figure 4.4 identifies types of information discussed in media reports. To calculate the number of
references for a specific topic, up to 13 codes were assigned different points within each article.
Therefore one article may include a number of topics. No special consideration was given to the
size of the reference, or the position of the piece.
When considering the media as one entity, the top two issues covered centred on economic
impacts of the proposed development (47 references), and information about the EA process (44
references). This coverage was supplemented with material about the environmental impact (28
references) and political issues (26 issues). These finding suggest that while the media may be a
useful tool to inform the public about how to participate in a review, data related to complex
issues surrounding the EA emphasize the economic impacts well above environmental impacts,
political issues and social impacts of the development.
However, breaking down the categories by source, it is apparent that different media outlets
focus on different issues (Figure 4.4). The Free Press covered economic impacts of development
(25 references) closely followed by information about the process (24 references) and
environmental impacts (24 references). Grassroots focused on political issues (11 references),
most notably questions surrounding the relationship between the Metis and the Crown, and
information about the EA process (10 references). The CBC focused on the economic impacts
of development, with 16 references to the contribution of the project to the provincial economy.
Given that the original impetus for completing an EA is to discuss the environmental impacts of
a project, it is disheartening to see that 85% of the media coverage related to this topic came
from one source (the Winnipeg Free Press).
69
Nisichaway&sihk Cree Nation and Manitoba Hydro have provided

the Clean Environment Commission with a solid case to support
the proposed Wuskwatim Generating and Transmission Projects,
according to NCN Councillor W. Elvis Thomas... The CEC
hearing moves to the Pas today, following two days in Thompson
earlier this week (Grassroots News ("NCN Says Evidence
Supports Case for Wuskwatim," 2004)
Manitoba Hydro made no serious

attempt to predict whether global
climate change will dry up the
waterways feeding its proposed
Wuskwatim dam, one o f Canada's
most respected environmentalists
said yesterday. Elizabeth May...
told the Manitoba Clean
Agreements, 5
Environment Commission the
Project, 12
climate change analysis in the
Guidelines, 1
utilitys studies on the Wuskwatim
dam was "cavalier and sloppy"
(Fallding, 2004b)
Process. 34
Funding, 2
Environmental Impacts,
28
Other Projects, 10
Decision, 4 I
Social Impacts, 16
Political Issues, 26
Community Impacts, 17
Alternatives, 4
The project is expected to create
jobs and give the Cree Nation in
Nelson House up to 33 per cent o f its
revenue('Wuskwatim raises ghosts o f
dam development," 2004).
Economic Impacts, 47
Figure 4.4: Number of topics addressed by media coverage of the Wuskwatim projects
(N= 206).
The media were interested in the events surrounding the EA of the Wuskwatim project. In terms
of alerting the public about the public dialogue surrounding the impacts of the project, this
coverage was significant. As observed by one participant, I think she [the Free Press reporter]
raised more public awareness than anyone (Interview 25).
70
Guidelines, 0
Process, 24
Figure a: Free Press coverage
Funding, 2^
24
'
Other Projects, 7
Social Impacts, 13
Decision, I-'
Alternatives, 3
Agreements, 1
Project, 4
Guidelines, 1
Process, 10
Figure B Grassroots coverage
Social impacts, 1
Funding, 0
Other Projects, 1
Decision, 2
Economic Impacts, 6
Alternatives, 1
-Funding, 0
Other Projects, 2-j
Decision, 1
Political Issues,
Alternatives, 0
-Process, 0
r Agreements, 3
Project, 4
Guidelines, 0
Figure C: CBC coverage
2
Social Impacts, 2
Economic Impacts,
Figure 4.4: Coverage of the Wuskwatim Projects

by the Winnipeg Free Press (n=127), Grassroots
News (n=43) and the CBC (n=36)
71
However, the depth of overall media coverage was, for the most part, cursory. Reports between
180 - 3,489 words, with an average of 710 words to highlight key events, and to review basic
assessment details for a uniformed reader, do not allow for in-depth coverage of seven hours of
daily testimony14.
There were intermittent news stories whenever something of rather high conflict
was played out before the commission. Then we had news interest. But in terms of
the ongoing, day to day stuff, not so much....[With respect to a specific witness] in
terms of the exchange at the commission, Hydros response and so on, that is absent
from the media record - its not absent from the public record, but how many
people are going to read the transcript of the hearings? (Interview 27)
Media plays an important role for informing the public that the EA is underway, and how to
become engaged in the review. However, the press is not employed as a vehicle for broad
dissemination of information. Reporters have different responsibilities and mandates that are
determined in concert with their employers. To the extent that media coverage ensured that the
public was conscious that discussions surrounding the project were on-going, they should be
commended. However, to use this medium as ones primary source of information about the
project and the assessment would be imprudent. Therefore, it is important that various methods
are used to consult the wider public, as noted by Palerm (2000).
4.5.1.2
The public registry
One of the most important tools for allowing access to information is an assessment public
registry. As noted by Sinclair and Diduck (in press), a public registry is a centralized repository
system of information to facilitate orderly and timely access to information related to an EA. At
the provincial level in Manitoba, the public registry is available in 14 locations; however, the
Provincial Department of Conservation manages only one site, the public registry at the Main
Street Library in Winnipeg. Although the Department forwards material to every depository,
management of these alternative sites is at the discretion of each site manager. This results in
potential inconsistencies in the public record, depending upon which site was visited (Sinclair,
Diduck, & Fitzpatrick, 2002). Additional concerns relate to access to public registry sites;
assessment participants have noted that certain depots have restrictive hours and lack cost
effective equipment necessary for keeping up to date w ith
m aterial
related to th e EA.
14NVivo (QSR, 1999-2002) calculates the number of characters per article. To determine the number of
words, this figure was divided by five, the standard number of characters per word.
72
An important remedy to issues of access involves the use of an electronic registry system. With
an electronic web site, the public is not restricted by library hours of operation, and one person
(representing the Director of Environmental Approvals) manages material. Thus the public, with
internet access, can review assessment material at its leisure. The on-line public registry is
located at http://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/envapprovals/registries/wuskwatim/. Although
this is a positive step in improving public access to information, it is important to note that the
electronic site did not replicate the data available at the Main Street Library location. Only a
small subset of information was available electronically; for example, unlike at the physical site,
the on-line registry did not include links to the proponents EIS, government technical reports,
the same body of correspondence related to the EA, or the final CEC decision report. In this
case, then, participants relying on the electronic public registry were not able to access all public
information related to the EA.
Beyond the provincial public registries, issues of consistency and access are also evident when
comparing the provincial and federal public registry. In the case of a federal-provincial
harmonized EA, each government manages its own public registry. The federal and Manitoba
assessment legislation, however, have different definitions of material that must be included in
that record (Table 4.5). Of particular importance is how legislation treats correspondence.
Federally, CEAA (subject to areas of third party information described in s. 55 (4)) includes a
record of public comments related to the EA; this public registry includes the significant body of
correspondence that takes place throughout an EA. Provincially, however, this correspondence
is placed on the public record only at the discretion of the Director of Environment Approvals.
Although the provincial public registry included some correspondence related to the assessment,
in comparison to the federal record, the provincial registry was lacking.
Third when a quasi-judicial hearing is held, all material submitted to the CEC may be put on its
record. However, this record, maintained by the CEC, is separate from the provincial public
registry; evidence submitted to the CEC is only placed on the provincial public registry at the
discretion of the Director. Little evidence presented at the hearings was posted on the provincial
public registry; consequently, it was important to consult the CEC office to get a comprehensive
view of the hearings.
73
Table 4.5: Description of material available on the public registries.
THE ENVIRONMENT ACT (1987)
THE CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL

ASSESSMENT ACT (1992)
55(3) Subject to subsection (4), a public
registry shall contain all records produced,
collected, or submitted with respect to the
environmental assessment of the project,
including
(a) any report relating to the assessment;
(b) any comments filed by the public in
relation to the assessment;
(c) any records prepared by the responsible
authority for the purposes of section 38;
(d) any records produced as the result of the
implementation of any follow-up
program;
(e) any terms of reference for a mediation or a
panel review; and
(/) any documents requiring mitigation
measures to be implemented.
17 Subject to section 47, the director shall

maintain or cause to be maintained a public
registry, containing for each proposal received
(a) a summary, prepared by the proponent in
form and detail approved by the department;
(b) the disposition and status of each proposal;
(c) a copy of the environmental license, where
applicable;
(d) a copy of the assessment report;
(e) justification for not accepting the advice
and recommendations of the commission,
where applicable; and
(f) justification for refusing to issue an
environmental licence, where applicable; and
(g) such other information as the minister or
director may from time to time direct.
This arrangement creates three sets of records - the provincial public registry, the federal public
registry, and the CEC public record - housed in different locations. Each site had a unique set of
documentation related to the EA, none of which was complete. Although participants had access
to EA material, this material was not readily available. Furthermore, all central repositories
were housed in Winnipeg. Residents of Northern Manitoba, where the project is situated, need
to travel south to access each complete official record.
Remedy to issues of access to information lies with the development of one central registiy
system, based on the broadest interpretation of what should be on the public record (in this case
the definition under CEAA). In addition to providing copies to various locales, all material
should be posted on the world wide web, a recommendation of Sinclair et al. (2002) partly
implemented by the Department of Conservation.
4.5.1.3
Interrogatory process
The IR process was a new step in the CEC review process. IRs involve multiple series of
written questions and answers designed to clarify and strengthen information provided in the
impact statement and supplementary material. For the Wuskwatim project, questions posed by
the CEC and participants were forwarded to the proponent (and other participant organizations,
74
excluding government) without vetting by CEC members or staff. The Commission

coordinated two rounds of written questions to [Manitoba Hydro & NCN], one round of written
questions to the Participants, and one round of written questions to the PAT (Clean Environment
Commission, 2004, p.l 1). This process generated over 500 questions.
The success of this part of the process is questionable. Six of the participants questioned the
utility of the exercise, particularly when balancing input versus return (Interviews 14,15,19, 22,
28, 30).
We think that the interrogatory approach resulted in a more formalized process, one
not everyone is comfortable in. It is a legalistic idea, a question and response
format... And it became a controversial issue at the hearings, [when participants]
spent the majority of their participant funding on the interrogatories. In the end
there were some questions about how useful the IR process was given the amount
of benefit to the hearing (Interview 14).
We were quite concerned with the Commission engaging us in the IR process, that
we saw pretty much as a duplication to what we had done through our review
process by making documents available, answering questions, addressing questions
to the extent that we thought they needed to be addressed, and then the Commission
starting it all over again and trying to reengage us in the process (Interview 22).
I think that the IR process just drove me to distraction. You have got the impact
statement and the IR process that changes the information, adds to it and clarifies it,
and then you have the hearing process where you are supposed to debate it; where
is the definitive, final statement that tells me what the answer is on fish? (Interview
30)
Four people, however, felt that IRs serve an important function in review process. For example,
Well the IRs are useful in the sense that you can get as much information as
possible ahead of time, and they are cheaper. That is just the basic efficiency
(Interview 16).
[One thing I found useful was]... the written exchange prior to the actual hearing.
Because you can try to narrow down points, and get an actual response. And it does
not always happen in a hearings process - you say your piece and it gets into a
transcript somewhere, and that is it. So I really do like that exchange, even if it
creates certain problems (Interview 29).
Recognizing that the IR process, as used in the EA o f the Wuskwatim projects got unwieldy,
three of these supporters advocated continued use of this exercise, albeit in a way that would
capitalize on the ways that IRs can strengthen the review process. They advocated using IRs to
75
lay a foundation for the oral part of the hearing process, or pretrial disclosure in a way that
would not generate cumbersome amounts of new documentation.
IRs have been used in other hearings, including the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact
Review Process (Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board, 2004) and National
Energy Board hearings (National Energy Board, 1996), with varying levels of success. While
there is no EA literature that debates the merits of this component of the assessment, as noted in
section 5.5.1.3, concerns also arose surrounding the IR process employed in the Snap Lake
project.
Concerns with the IR process during the Wuskwatim projects EA, some of which are described
above, include:
duplication of efforts if questions are addressed in existing documentation,
scattered trails of information about issues, which arise from changes or modifications to
documented answers,
the need for additional resources to review and critique the new body of information,
and,
the perceived use of this exchange as a means of delaying assessment activities.
Suggestions for improving the efficiency of the IR process as it is implemented in Manitoba

include:
undertake only one round of IRs, and modify the assessment timelines accordingly to
ensure that all requests are addressed (see also section 4.6.1),
integrated IR responses in a final version of the impact statement, available

electronically,
vet IRs through the CEC or its staff, so as to minimize duplication of efforts15, and,
prepare a summary of key assessment issues that clearly identifies the documentation
trail (see section 4.5.1.4).
15 This solution met with some criticism in the EA of the Snap Lake project, as discussed in 5.5.1.3.
76
4.5.1.4
Hearings
The hearings serve as the penultimate stage of the assessment process, the last opportunity for
public dialogue about a proposed development before the CEC makes its recommendation to the
government as to whether the project should proceed. This step is an important final phase of
data collection, a forum in which participants are encouraged to debate, test, and critically
evaluate evidence in a public setting. It provides a final opportunity for the presentation of
alternative ideas and perspectives about a project. Therefore, discussion about the nature of data
available to the public should include consideration of data management during the specific
hearings, and an evaluation of the dataset following this final public review.
As noted above, the CEC sat for 32 days over a 4-month period to consider the proponents
application. Twenty-seven of these days were scheduled during regular business hours, between
9:00 am and 5:00 pm. The remaining five sessions were held between 1:00 pm and 10:00 pm.
All hearing participants were copied on materials during the hearing, so presenters were
physically able to access information. However, concerns about availability of information
during the hearings, in a format that met the needs of participants, was a reoccurring theme.
Concerns of research participants include:
the assumption that all participants were able to review all material related to the EA
was unrealistic (Interview 30).
material presented during the hearing was provided only to EA participants, leaving
general members of the public without reference material - When they gave
information to everybody at the tables, they got the paper information, and the maps,
etc., but sitting at the back, we didnt... So it was harder to follow just verbally
(Interview 17).
daily transcripts, while important for information sharing, were onerous to review on a
daily basis - they assumed throughout that (a) everybody was reading every word of
the transcript.. .that we were all somehow funded and enabled to do that (Interview
15).
a lack of oral and written translation may have alienated residents of NCN listening to
the assessment - We are dealing with a first Nation community that is in the North, and
77
a lot of Elders dont speak English, and I found it very unsettling, that you would have
this going on - an important, major event like this without an interpreter there
(Interview 17).
Several ideas were suggested for improving access to material during the hearings, including:
the CEC (or its designate), as an independent body, should prepare a 40 page summary
of the submissions from assessment participants, and a synthesis of key issues related to
the EA (both resolved and outstanding) - That might be a way to make [the EA] more
accessible to a certain degree. Even reading 30 pages is a lot, but compared to the
binder, I think that might be better (Interview 23). This recommendation can be seen to
extend Diduck and Mitchells (2003) assertion that research should be conducted to
improve the readability of impact statements. Accessibility to EA information extends
beyond the impact statement to other areas of the EA process, namely documentation
generated during the hearings. Efforts should be taken to ensure that EA material is
available in a format that meets the needs of participants. The above recommendation is
one (of potentially many) tools that could be used to address this need.
material presented during the hearings should be provided to members of the gallery or
projected for all to see using overheads.
the CEC (or its designate) as an independent body should produce short abstracts of key
issues discussed during each hearing day to assist in the review of daily transcripts.
Participants themselves could be asked to list the top five or ten areas covered, following
each question period. This document should not be an addition to the extensive public
record, but should be used to facilitate quick and easy public access to information.
Again, this recommendation speaks to the need to provide material in a fashion that
meets the needs of participants.
the CEC should provide simultaneous oral translation, and written translation of key
documents into appropriate First Nation languages. This recommendation reflects
Palerms (2000) caution that translation services must be provided for groups of citizens
who are involved in the EA but are not fluent in the dominant language.
78
4.5.1.5
Accuracy and completeness
Given the role of hearings as the final tool for data collection, it is appropriate to consider the
nature of information available related to the project at the end of the hearings; did the
participants believe the data were accurate and complete? When asked to consider the data
related to the assessment, research participants provided varied, and somewhat contradictory,
perspectives.
Six research participants suggested that at the end of the process, the data remained incomplete,
despite efforts to test and analyze evidence. One person noted that no dataset could ever be
complete. Given that the intensive research baseline for this particular project did not include
even a decade of observation, significant information deficiencies remained16. Without an
adequate baseline record collected or described in the assessment, it was impossible to predict
project impacts, including those related to the specific routing of transmission lines (Interview
29). A second participant noted that the baseline data collected by the proponents were not
provided in sufficient detail in the EIS.
The fundamental failing that I saw in the environmental impact statement is that it
summarized information, and made judgments without giving clear links to the
backups, so you had to trust them when they said We have canvassed everything,
and this is what it says (Interview 30).
Public participants had to work backwards to generate sufficient baseline information in order to
reevaluate the proponents conclusions. In at least two instances, when participants worked
backward to reconstruct the dataset, their evidence was challenged when their numbers did not
match the unpublished figures of the proponent.
Others noted that some aspects were inadequately canvassed throughout the document. Topics
identified as inadequately discussed in the EIS and IRs by some research participants included
cumulative impacts, impacts of climate change on the project, and an overall energy plan.
I dont think we were fully happy with what they call a cumulative environmental
assessment, and we would like to see them more thorough on that in the future
(Interview 18)
16Traditional knowledge was used to strengthen baseline data. As noted by one participant, the scientific
case for some of the environmental components was not sound, and the only way it was to us was
because of the Elder and resource users and their traditional knowledge (Interview 25).
79
While the Environmental Impact Statement does take note of possible greenhouse
gas emissions, which is part of what's required under the CEAA document, the EIS
fails to incorporate potential impacts of climate change as they could affect the
project (Wuskwatim Generation and Transmission Project, 2004, p.3939).
Other participants noted that for the information to be complete, it had to be rigorously tested
(Interviews 15,16,17,23). This system of analysis was compromised, in part, when the key
ENGO reviewing the impact statement withdrew from the proceeding in the middle of crossexamining the proponents panel of environmental experts.
[On the environmental side], I think there were many issues that were not fully
canvassed. Even basic topics, such as how do you do a cumulative effects analysis,
or what are best practices were not resolved, from my perspective. I do not think
that the record was as strong on those issues as it should have been (Interview 23).
Despite opportunities to challenge and test evidence, six participants felt that the dataset
remained incomplete.
On the other end of the spectrum, seven participants suggested that the dataset was
comprehensive (Interviews 14, 18, 19,21,22, 25, 28). These participants noted that the data
were thoroughly tested in the process, by both Commission council and public participants.
They believed that this dataset was sufficient to provide a strong foundation through which the
public could reach a decision about the project; the decision was not compromised by [any]
outstanding information. One participant noted that while there may have been minor oversights
in the information, the data were sufficient to reach a decision about the project. Another
suggested that information provided went well beyond what was needed to make a decision. As
a whole, this group suggested that sufficient detail about the project was available to make an
informed decision about project impacts, and in turn reach a conclusion about whether the
project should proceed.
4.5.2
Argumentation: Did the EA include evidence from different points of
view?
As alluded to in the discussion surrounding accuracy and completeness of assessment
information, EA participants rely on a variety of data sources, beyond that provided by the
proponent, on which to formulate their positions. To this end, an EA should ensure that
participants are exposed to different points of view. In the EA of the Wuskwatim projects,
80
various steps were taken to ensure access to alternative perspectives, including the allocation of
participant funding, and flexible deadlines and schedules.
Participant funding is one mechanism to ensure that alternative perspectives are explored
throughout the EA. As summarized by Sinclair & Diduck (in press), funding increases the
capacity of recipient organizations to engage in the assessment by allowing for hiring of
independent technical expertise to aid in the review, and increasing the ability of organizations
to prepare for and be active in the different steps of the assessment (e.g. scoping, hearings, etc.).
Providing financial assistance allows for increased public participation in the assessment
process. The CEC awarded $876, 438 to 11 groups involved in the EA of the Wuskwatim
project, making this the largest financial award for participation in an EA up to this point in time
in Canada. Table 4.6 breaks down funding amounts by organization.
Table 4.6: Funding awarded through the participant assistant program.
1Consumers Association of Canada/ Manitoba Society of Seniors

I Pimicikamak Cree Nation
1Time to Respect Earths Ecosystems/ Resource Conservation Manitoba
Manitoba Wildlands - Canadian Nature Federation
Manitoba Metis Federation
Opaskwawayak Cree Nation
Community Association of South Indian Lake
Mosakahiken Cree Nation
Pukatawagan Fishermans Association
Trapline #18
York Factory First Nation
$190,000
$160,000
$145,000
$115,000
$80,050
$60,000
$60,000
$20,450
$20,450
$20,000
$5,488
Participant funding can be used for a variety of activities related to an EA (as specified in
individual funding applications).
However, as noted above, the assessment process included both funded and unfunded
participants. A review of documentation related to the hearings suggests organizations had three
approaches to debating the EIS17. The first approach involved developing independent, new
research on specific issues to counter the proponents data. Other organizations presented a
17 Approaches are not mutually exclusive, in that organizations may have employed more than one
technique in challenging the EA.
81
critique of the EIS evidence based on existing knowledge. The third approach was to provide a
general commentary on assessment issues.
In some cases, this funding contributed to the development of new research material related to
key components of the impact statement. For example, the record clearly illustrates evidence of
independent investigations that include consideration of
flow regimes on Missi Falls water structure,
the edge effect as it relates to proposed transmission corridors,
alternatives to the advancement of Wuskwatim based on demand management

programs, and,
use of a portfolio approach18 for evaluating resource options related to the economic
impact of a project.
However, looking back on the public record, only one research report is available to the broad
public (posted on the internet) in a concise fashion. Time to Respect Earths Ecosystems/
Resource Conservation Manitoba commissioned a study by Torrie, Smith and Associates on
alternatives to the advancement of Wuskwatim which acts as a stand alone document, useful to
participants beyond the hearings themselves (Torrie, Torrie Smith Associates, Time to Respect
Earth's Ecosystems, & Resource Conservation Manitoba, 2004). While other organizations
commissioned or completed research projects, documentation is not widely available (see
4.5.1.2). In comparison to other recorded EAs, the EA of Wuskwatim projects was less research
oriented (see for example the Sable Gas Panel review (Fitzpatrick & Sinclair, 2003)).
The second approach to EA data involved cross examining the proponent. This process allows
participants to question and challenge assessment data and conclusions. As with IRs, this
replicates processes used in our legal system, and is common in quasi-judicial and formal
hearings. This was the most significant way that evidence was tested by members of the public
18 The proponents considered project alternatives using, in part, a levelized cost approach, where the net
cost (including capital, operating costs and any other fixed and variable costs) of a particular generation
alternative [were] divided by the present value of the average energy produced by that generation
alternative over its economic life, expressed in cents per kilowatt hour or dollars per megawatt hour
(Clean Environment Commission, 2004, p.146). A portfolio approach, by contrast, would have
considered the range of alternatives to achieve the same objective, whereby each alternative combines
different sequences of energy sources (that is, varying combinations of hydroelectric, wind, supply-side
enhancements, and demand-side management (Clean Environment Commission, 2004, p. 148).
82
during the EA of the Wuskwatim projects, as noted by 32 days of hearings, during which the
proponents panels were subject to cross-examination on all or part of 21 days.
The third approach to examining the EIS involved a general commentary on specific research
issues. This strategy was employed by two general groups - presenters in expressing opinions
about the project, and EA participants. While this strategy, often used in informal hearings, is
important for recording the opinions of the general public, when integrated into a formal hearing
setting, general presentations are less effective for affecting change (see, for example discussion
in Fitzpatrick (2001). It is important to ensure a broad range of presenters have access to the
public review of a project; as such, part of the process must include opportunities for informal
presentations. However, when faced with a quasi-judicial hearings, participant organizations
could reconsider decisions to employ this strategy as a means of testing the proponents
evidence. In the words of one participant:
I usually see the publics role, [to] the extent that they can, to critique the
information they have been given and to identify gaps. And what I saw them
mostly doing was educating the panel as to the issues out there. And that is valid
sometimes, if the panel doesnt have any clue about a topic you are bringing up
because it has been completely overlooked and you need to educate them. But I
saw it as a real weakness in the presentation of the interveners that didnt actually
say, This paragraph dealing with wind, we disagree with it... .They gave a treatise
on wind, for example, and said, Wind is this, wind is that. I think that it meant
that the panel essentially disregarded their information because that panel can only
really use information that deals with the documents they have - the assessment.
Even though some of it was very interesting, I dont think it was focused on what
they needed it to focus on. Although this process may have been an effective tool
for educating assessment participants, it was less effective and did not contribute to
a larger body of alternative perspectives (Interview 30).
Faced with a greenfield assessment process, not all organizations are familiar with the most
effective strategies for advancing their cases. However, beyond a lack of experiential
knowledge, some participants suggested a lack of direction by the CEC regarding its
expectations for participants. This could be remedied through a number of activities, including a
short course on how to be an effective intervener in the hearings, as well as additional
direction on how to manage participant funding and/or make it through the process (Interviews
15, 16,21,23).
In some hearings (see Chapter 5), government assumes the role of an adversary, in that it
believes its role is to challenge and test assessment evidence. In this way, various governments
83
rigorously test the proponents information in the public forum, thereby providing one or more
alternative perspectives to the environmental impact statement. For this EA, however,
government did not assume this function. The federal and provincial governments completed a
technical analysis of the impact statement through their technical advisory committee prior to the
hearings. While meeting notes were posted on the public registry, technical advisory committee
meetings were closed to the participants, except for the proponent and its consultants. When it
came time for the hearings, government took a hands-off approach to the review. The federal
government did not attend the hearings19. The provincial government attended the hearings, and
gave testimony on two separate occasions. However, it was not active in cross-examining the
proponent through this process. As noted in correspondence to the CEC prior to the hearing, this
was a deliberate strategy:
As you are aware, in order to protect the validity of the CEC independent review,
provincial decision-makers cannot take an active role in the hearing process or
comment in any substantive way on issues that will ultimately be the subject of
their licensing decisions (L. Strachan, personal communication, February 27,
2004).20
By completing their analysis prior to the hearings, in closed discussions, the onus of challenging
evidence rests solely on the CEC and public participants. While this role may preserve the
independence of the CEC, it also detracts from efforts to ensure alternative perspectives are
explored during the hearings.
Access to financial resources is an important theme in assessment literature (Diduck & Mitchell,
2003; Palerm, 2000). Research suggests that money is necessary for effective participation in
EA. While a significant amount of money was provided to the participants of the Wuskwatim
projects, participants suggested that money was not always used to support the most useful
approach to testing assessment documentation. This finding complements research that finds
access to financial resources is necessary, but not sufficient for effective engagement in EA.
Busenburg (2000) observes that, beyond access to money, successful participation is contingent
on support from other organizations within the policy coalition (discussed in section 4.7.2). The
19 The absence of federal government involvement in the hearings was identified as a cause for procedural
uncertainty by participant organizations.
20 Following APA convention, documentation that is of limited circulation is referenced as personal
communication. However, as all material is accessible on the public registry, additional information
about material identified as personal communication will appear in Appendix 2.
84
Wuskwatim projects EA extends this list of complexities to include consideration of the

approach to the consultation effort. Results support an approach to EA that provides for testing
of the proponents evidence. This finding corroborates, in small part, studies that suggest access
to experts in the field is important for successful participation (Palerm, 2000; Webler,
Kastenholz, & Renn, 1995). Effective participation relies on access to financial resources,
support from policy coalitions, and an approach that allows for and promotes access to
alternative perspectives.
4.5.3
Discussion
A wealth of information, including the impact statement, IRs and hearing transcripts was
generated throughout the Wuskwatim projects EA. Initiatives were taken to ensure that the
public had access to this material, including the use of an on-line registry and third party media
coverage. Funding was provided to support independent research about the review, and thereby
ensure that alternative arguments could be presented during the review.
Participants identified multiple methods through which the assessment could become more
situated, thus ensuring the material met their needs, and the argumentation represented a variety
of perspectives. Sample recommendations included repackaging assessment material in a more
user-ffiendly manner, reflective of suggestions identified by Fitzpatrick and Sinclair (2003), and
developing third party summaries of positions and events at key points in the assessment.
Ensuring that participants use funding to research key issues would expand the range of opinions
and points of view explored throughout the process.
This findings support research that identifies access to information as important to public
participation and learning (Diduck & Mitchell, 2000, Webler & Tuler 2000). The discussion
corroborates the assertion that material must be available in a form that suits the needs of
participants (Fitzpatrick & Sinclair, 2003; Shor, 1993), as participants identified a number of
deficiencies in that respect.
Data also support literature that suggests that access to resources is important (Palerm, 2000;
Webler et al, 1995) but not sufficient for ensuring evidence is presented from all points of view
(Busenburg, 2000). Although significant funding was allocated to public actors engaged in the
EA, little independent research was generated, and all alternative perspectives were not
adequately canvassed. A lack of government involvement in the hearings also contributed to
85
insufficient testing of evidence. This lack of alternative perspectives led participants to question
the accuracy of assessment information.
4.6
Evaluative aspects: Normative ideas
4.6.1
Critical: Did the timing of the review allow participants to consider
assessment information?
In order to learn, individuals should be able to reflect critically on new material. One of the
limiting factors of an EA process is time; therefore, consideration of the timing of an assessment
is significant. Timing has often been a source of disharmony in EA. As noted by Sinclair &
Diduck (in press), one enduring concern related to public engagement in EA is accelerated
decision making. Nationally, the minimum time period for public review of assessment material
is 30 days (Sinclair & Diduck, in press). This timing is meant to balance the opportunity for
public consideration of information with the proponents concern that public review periods
unnecessarily extend the time it takes to make decisions, thereby creating process inefficiencies
and economic uncertainties (Sinclair & Diduck, in press). However, in establishing this time
frame, participants often feel rushed and overwhelmed with activities related to the assessment.
The Environment Act (1987) of Manitoba gives no direction on timing of process for hearings
by CEC, save the note that the Commissions report must be submitted to the Minister 90 days
after the hearings are complete (section 7(3)). The CEC process guidelines are equally quiet on
the timing of the review. To provide a more detailed context for examining the timing of the EA
of the Wuskwatim projects, I turn to the CEAA guide to panel reviews. According to this
document, where no additional information has been requested, a total of not more than 396 days
should pass between the submission of the proponents environmental impact statement and the
submission of the panel report. Where additional information is required, not more than 411
days should pass, exclusive of the time it takes for the proponent to prepare supplementary
information.
In the EA of the Wuskwatim projects, 520 days passed between the submission of the
environmental impact statement and the release of the CEC report. Although this number is 109
days longer than that recommended by CEAA, it includes the time necessary for the proponent
86
to prepare and submit three supplemental filings on August 8, October 10 2003, and February
27, 200421.
When asked to reflect on the timing of the assessment, a majority of participants defended the
amount of time used in the review. Seven participants suggested that the time allotted for the
EA was necessary, particularly given the steps taken in the review process (Interviews 14,16,
17,18, 21,22,24,28,30).
I think it was certainly sufficient. I dont think there was anything that the CEC did
to delay the process. But it did take a long time. These are lengthy processes,
especially on a project the size of Wuskwatim (Interview 18).
The overall timing? Way too long, in my view. Was it necessary? The ways
things unfolded, probably it was necessary because of all the changes in the
process, that was sort of implemented on the process by others, i.e. the PUB
addition, and how to rethink that, etc. (Interview 24).
In terms of the amount of time, to me, it felt really long, it was exhausting, but I
cant say that any of it that was unnecessaiy. There werent too many people where
I said Oh that is ridiculous, you spent a whole day on that!(Interview 30).
Seven of these participants suggested all of the steps in the process were necessary, but in future,
activities could be streamlined to expedite the review (14,16,18,21, 24,28,30). Aspects
identified for streamlining include
require better coordination between the two levels of government,
reform the IR process (see section 4.5.1.3),
ensure that participants have flexible schedules so that if additional hearing days are
necessary, they are held within the allocated time block, rather than added at the end (in
this case, then the schedule would have had the hearing sitting for four to five days per
week, rather than three so that the hearing does not exceed two months),
schedule hearings for specific topics, rather than allocating blocks of time to discuss
need for and alternatives to and the EIS, and,
21 The proponent completed the first supplementary information package in response to specific requests
by the government technical advisory committee.
87
develop a structure to ensure that participants are certain about the timing of their
contribution, that also ensures that people are able to express all their thoughts Participants should only get x amount of time to speak, and then when they use that
they go to the back of the line and start again, so that everybody can be heard equally.
Too often, one person would take the whole day, or a whole half a day, and then you
have got maybe a trapper sitting there waiting to speak, and he is waiting for days,
waiting for his chance (Interview 17).
Other research participants had different perceptions about the timing of the review. Two
suggested that there was more than adequate time provided for reviewing the projects
(Interviews 19, 23). One person suggested that the IR process was onerous, and time
consuming, thereby delaying the review process. On the other end of the spectrum, one person
noted that the timing was accelerated, relative to the receipt of information:
So it is not the question of the time of the hearing process, it is a question of the
time relative to the necessary background studies for the hearing process. I mean,
you know, if you have all the information at the beginning, then a year should be
enough for the hearing, I would think (Interview 29)
A majority of the participants supported the time involved in reviewing the application. That
said, concerns were raised regarding the uncertainty of timing.
The final time line was the result of numerous delays in the process, including a later than
expected submission of the environmental impact statement by the proponent (which affected
the time surrounding the scope of the assessment, as in section 4.4.2), a longer IR process, and
hearings that were extended on several occasions22. From the outset, some organizations
realized the hearing dates were unrealistic (Interviews 16,24). However, managing for
uncertain time lines was challenging for many participants. With each increase in time there was
an increase on pressure for resources, particularly in instances in which there was a limited
source of participant funding (Interview 15, 16,24). While some organizations were able to
juggle financial resources, others were less successful, and had to pull out of the process.
Documentation on the public record surrounding time line decisions registered participants
appeal of decisions, rather than recording input into timing decisions
22 The original schedule had the CEC sitting for 13 days between March 1 and April 7th, 2004. As noted
early, the CEC in fact sat for 32 days between March 1st and June 9th2004.
88
I am wondering if the courtesy might be extended to the rest of us who are

participating in this hearing, so that we have an ability to take back this schedule,
review it and provide input upon those who are not Manitoba Hydro, in terms of
their needs and scheduling, in terms of determining a schedule that is efficient for
us and not only just Hydro (Pre Trial Hearing Conference, Wuskwatim Generation
and Transmission Project, 2003, p.26).
Although the extension of deadlines was meant to ensure that participants were able to negotiate
aspects of the EA, a lack of public input into these decisions may have contributed to the
uncertainty surrounding the timing, and dissatisfaction with time management.
Moving beyond the strict issue of deadlines, one participant observed that the strength of the
assessment timing was that it provided for critical thinking about key issues.
And in some sense having it spread over four months was a nightmare from a work
efficiency perspective, but it wasnt a bad thing from the perspective that people
had a lot of time to think about it. We had time to ponder these things, we didnt
have to make a two week snap decision (Interview 16)
A second limiting factor of an EA process is the scope of the review. As discussed in section
2.5.1.3, EA content must address cumulative effects, evaluate need for and alternatives to project
development, and identify monitoring programs. A fourth area identified by research
participants is how an EA considers traditional knowledge. While all four aspects were
considered in the review, the degree to which each was evaluated merits discussion.
The final EIS guidelines required the proponent to evaluate the cumulative effects of the project.
Cumulative effects assessment (CEA) shall form an integral part the environmental
and socio-economic assessment. The cumulative effects assessment shall look at all
effects that are likely to result from the project when they are likely to occur in
combination with other projects or activities that have been, or will be carried out
(Manitoba Conservation, 2002b, p. 16).
Although the impact statement conducted a CEA, as discussed in section 4.4.2, the approach was
found to be lacking in that the proponents were found to interpret the definition of cumulative
effects narrowly (Clean Environment Commission, 2004, p.82), which contributed to issues
surrounding the accuracy and completeness of assessment information (section 4.5.1.5). Section
7.2.2.8 of the Report of the Clean Environment Commission (2004, 80-83) reviews the positions
regarding the CEA of key participants of the process. In reaching its decision, the Commission
identified five characteristics of a high-quality CEA. Future CEAs should:
89
assess effects over a larger (that is, regional) area that may cross jurisdictional
boundaries
assess effects during a longer period of time into the past and future
consider effects on VECs due to interactions with other actions, and not just the
effectsof the single action under review
include other past, existing and future (for example, reasonably foreseeable)
actions
evaluate significance in consideration of other than just local, direct effects (Clean
Environment Commission, 2004, p. 120)
Concerns also related to how the proponents conducted the need for and alternatives to. This
portion of the analysis was originally absent in the guidelines, as it was to be addressed by the
PUB process (see section 4.4.2). With harmonization of two provincial reviews, the guidelines
called for a public examination of the need for the project and alternatives to developing the
proposed Manitoba Hydro projects (Manitoba Conservation, 2002b, p.3). In doing so, the
analysis focused primarily in economic terms23. Furthermore, one participant questioned the
completeness of this analysis (see also section 4.5.2):
There is a difference in the information available [in the needs for and alternatives
to and the environmental impact statement] since the EIS studies were much more
extensive. There was also the judgment by the CEC that Hydro should have
engaged in a more thorough portfolio analysis for the NFAAT (Interview 29).
Monitoring programs were a third area of significant debate during the hearings ( Wuskwatim
Generation and Transmission Project, 2004, pp. 6611-6616, 7143-7145, 7347-7349, 76237625). Specifically, participants were interested pursuing an Independent Monitoring agency,
similar to programs implemented in the Northwest Territories to monitor the environmental
impacts of diamond development. Specific testimony on the function and funding of these
agencies was present primarily from the proponents. Unfortunately, the Commission found
insufficient evidence to recommend a similar initiative in Manitoba.
The Commission understands the concerns that several Participants expressed about
MHs ability to conduct environmental monitoring and reporting... While the
Commission is not making a recommendation on this point, it urges Manitoba
23 For example, all five recommendation of the CEC related to the needs for and alternatives to the project
centred on monetary issues (for example the inclusion of business risks and financial analysis) (Clean
Environment Commission, 2004, p. 122).
90
Conservation to consider such an initiative (Clean Environment Commission, 2004,

pp.85-86).
Finally, the fourth aspect of the assessment content surrounded traditional knowledge. The
guidelines required the proponent to use traditional knowledge as a source of information (see
section 4.4.2). As noted by one participant, traditional knowledge played an important role in
establishing impacts
I learned how powerful -I have a belief, I worked with First Nations my whole life,
but I learned how powerful traditional knowledge can be. Because actually we felt
the science-based hydro case was not always sound, and the only way it was [made
sound] was because of the Elder and resource users and their traditional knowledge
(Interview 25).
As noted by the Clean Environment Commission (2004, p. 74), documentation surrounding this
evidence was lacking.
However, except for the general references that [traditional knowledge] was used,
use of traditional knowledge did not appear to be as evident in the EIS documents
for the identification, assessment and mitigation of environmental effects. On this
matter, the Commission accepts MH/NCNs explanation that, while [traditional
knowledge] was used in the environmental assessments, its use was not effectively
communicated in the EIS documents.
Although a comprehensive analysis of EIS content is outside the scope of this research, two
common themes surround these four aspects of the review: the approach was found to be
deficient, and the participants lacked the resources to compel the proponents to revise their
approach. These findings compel EA practitioners and academics to reinvigorate efforts to share
lessons learned from assessment processes, and create a publicly accessible, best practices
library. Although much literature surrounds how participants of an EA should frame
information to ensure it meets the needs of the participants (Mitchell 2002, Praxis 1988, section
4.5.1), it would appear that consideration must also be given to how to keep the public informed
of best practices in EA.
4.6.2
Equity: Do participants believe that assessment activities were
equitable?
All participants recognized that the purpose of the hearing was to ensure that the public was
aware of the assessment, and had an opportunity to intervene in the process.
91
We dont need a hearing to inform Hydro what they are doing again. This is to
inform, I think, the citizens of Manitoba what is going on (Interview 17).
The public - they are public hearings, and I think that is the most important part,
that the public can intervene in the process. No matter what it is they have to say,
they should be able to do so. And I strongly believe that is the most important part
of the process (Interview 28).
Participants had a wide range of responses when asked to consider the extent to which
assessment activities were equitable. Two suggested that the proceedings were fair, providing
multiple opportunities for the public to be engaged in the process (Interview 19,28). A majority
of participants, however, expressed concerns about how the process balanced the needs of
different types of publics (participants, presenters, and the audience), and treated individuals
differently.
One of the key factors that created an unequal environment was the allocation of participant
funding. As noted by seven participants, the public did not have equal access to the process as
funded participants (Interview 16,17,23, 24,25,26, 30). While both categories of participant
were encouraged to present at the hearings, funded participants had resources to read assessment
documentation, undertake research related to key topics, attend the hearings, and complete crossexaminations of witnesses. And while the CEC accommodated requests from the floor to hear
presenters, the overall scheduling was often not appropriate for the general public.
In the beginning they said they would allow for public participation, but then
consistently nobody shows up. Then the CEC decided to end the days at five
oclock. It sends a real message when your hearings end at five oclock every day.
You are never going to get the public coming in (Interview 30).
In essence, funded participants had a greater ability to be engaged in the review, although non
funded participants should be congratulated for their activities (Interview 16, 17, 25).
In reviewing this text, one participant suggested that numerous steps were taken to engage the
public (Interview 28). He noted that he was not aware of a single participant who wished to
come forward and put his comments on the record, who was refused the opportunity.
Furthermore, repeated requests for presenters to come forward were made by the Chair. Finally,
this person observed that over the 32 day period, the panel heard from many people (see Tale
4.3) - a sign of a successful public engagement program.
92
Efforts to balance the playing field between presenters and participants should consider:
reconsideration of the location of the hearings. Although Winnipeg is a central,

population location, more time should have been spent in the North, and more hearings
should have been held in Nelson House (Interview 25).
reduce the adversarial nature of the formal hearings, so that presenters were not afraid to
come forward (Interviews 17,21); and,
take additional steps to engage the general audience in the review through sharing of
information (see section 4.5.1.4).
Beyond differentiation between participants and presenters, various participant organizations

were treated differently in the process. Three participants observed there was little consistency
in how the CEC dealt with assessment participants (Interview 15,17,30)
The CEC treated people differently depending on where they were participating in
the process, so in the long term period, perhaps near the end they [the CEC] were
tired. But I didnt find that the participants got treated the same (Interview 17).
Examples of these inconsistencies, identified by participants, include at times the rules were
broken for the proponent but were held firm for others (Interview 30), and interactions were not
always based on the most formal and courteous level.
All people involved in the process need to be treated with respect. However, as a member of the
audience, I observed that in some instances, the respect was not always reciprocated among
participants. Over the long term, this environment led to frayed tempers, and less than courteous
interactions (see for example dialogue in Wuskwatim Generation and Transmission Project
(2004,1540-1544,4285-4286, 7239)). These types of exchanges could be minimized through
the implementation of strict operating procedures by the CEC designed to minimize the
inconsistent application of rules, and halt impolite interactions.
Again, in reviewing these findings, one participant observed
It is sometimes a fine line between allowing participants to feel at ease to speak
their views and respect others' views. But, I believe that if the chairperson
establishes too many rigid rules, we would scare away even more public
participation... I believe the process was equitable and fair. But I do agree we
have to continue looking for ways to make it ever more friendly and accessible to
93
interested participants. In that regard we also have to look for ways to better inform
the participants and find ways to make the process more efficient (Interview 28).
4.6.3
Discussion
Critical and equity criteria address regulative arguments. Do the speakers make a legitimate
appeal? In this way, answers are not established through a determination of right or wrong, as
designative arguments are, but are negotiated among participants. Results revealed there is a
strong foundation through which participants can negotiate their positions.
Participants observed the lengthy timing of the review was necessary, given the uncertainties
that surround the process; notwithstanding this support, many suggested opportunities are
available to accelerate the review and establish more certainty in terms of overall timing. This
finding is substantively different than that of other research that considers the timing of the
assessment as a component of effective public involvement in EA. Empirical research suggests
that additional time is necessary to review projects (see for example Fitzpatrick & Sinclair,
2003; Petts, 2003). In this instance, most participants felt that timelines could be accelerated,
subject to revisions in the assessment process.
Although key components of an assessment were considered in the impact statement (cumulative
effects, need for and alternatives to, monitoring, and traditional knowledge), these aspects were
found to be lacking. Findings suggest that participants must be able to easily access best
practices guidelines surrounding these areas to facilitate the review process.
With respect to equal participation, results corroborate the importance of ensuring the public is
aware of the project and has an opportunity to intervene in the process. However, participants
were divided on the question of whether the process was equitable. Of paramount importance to
this discussion is access to financial resources. Participant funding was available (as discussed
in section 4.5.2), thereby reflecting calls in the literature to provide money to balance access to
the process (see for example Sinclair and Diduck, in press). Results revealed that while funding
did provide access for traditionally disenfranchised participants, in doing so, it resulted in
different opportunities for funded and non-funded participants. As such, a majority of
participants believed the process was not equitable. This finding is significant in that it, again,
illustrates that evaluating the nature of a program requires consideration of a number of factors.
Although participant funding can provide for improved access to recipient organizations,
94
additional steps are necessary to ensure that non-funded organizations and members of the
public are provided with opportunities to access the assessment process.
Steps were taken to ensure the EA encouraged active public participation. Financial resources
were provided to participants, discussion was allowed to carry on as long as possible, and steps
were taken to make the venue and timing of the review accessible (Palerm, 2000, p. 592).
Additional efforts, however, would have contributed to a process that was more equitable for
participants, presenters and member of the general audience. Examples of these changes include
making the hearing schedule more predictable, ensuring information was available to all classes
of participants, reducing the adversarial atmosphere, and holding more meetings in the North.
4.7
Advocative aspects: Subjective components
4.7.1
Individual outcomes: What instrumental and communicative learning
outcomes are attributed to the EA?

All participants identified individual learning outcomes associated with the EA of the
Wuskwatim projects. Table 4.7 highlights these instrumental and communicative learning
outcomes, relative to modified categories identified by Diduck & Mitchell (2003).
In developing these results, it became clear that there is overlap in the three frameworks used to
discuss learning. Learning outcomes identified as individual or communicative may also be
classified as policy oriented or organizational. This overlap stems from the concept of
learning as discussed in Chapter 2; individuals facilitate all scales of learning. Before
organizational learning develops, its members must learn. Before policy-oriented learning can
occur, members of the policy community must learn. Consequently, all learning outcomes must
first be identified by individuals before they can contribute to the development of the
organization or the development of the larger system of which the organization is a part (see
Chapter 6). With that in mind, it is prudent to discuss individual learning associated with this
EA.
Instrumental learning involves the acquisition of new skills or information, and data grounded in
a technical understanding o f events. Ten participants identified specific technical learning
associated with the Wuskwatim projects, including knowledge of the projects and specific
environmental, social, economic, and cultural impacts associated with their development.
Examples of technical learning outcomes, summarized in Table 4.7, include a new
95
understanding of dam construction, caribou, demand management programs, the proponents, and
edge effects.
Technical learning is significant for a number of reasons. This type of technical learning is the
primary focus of an EA; it is essential for understanding the complex issues related to the
specific project under review. Knowledge is acquired through exposure to different assessment
activities; as participants are engaged in the review, they gain an understanding of the technical
details surrounding the development. This type of knowledge can also serve a more strategic
function, however, as components of the project are replicated in other activities. For example,
familiarity with northern communities is useful when approaching other developments in the
same geographic region as the Wuskwatim projects. Understanding of dam construction would
be useful for activities surrounding future hydro developments. Knowledge of Manitoba Hydro
and demand management could contribute to other regulatory processes, such as Public Utility
Board activities. Thus, although technical understanding is project specific, it likely has
relevance to other activities.
Notwithstanding the utility of this knowledge outside the EA of the specific projects, this type of
expertise, for the most part, rests with the individual. Not everyone in the organization needs to
acquire this level of expertise in order to function in their daily activities. The acquisition of
these learning outcomes is significant to the development of individual, as opposed to
organizations, or the broader systems in which organizations reside.
96
Table 4.7: Instrumental and communicative learning associated with the EA of the
Wuskwatim projects. Where appropriate, quotations representing participants
learning outcomes are included. In some instances, however, direct quotations were
not available.
INSTRUMENTAL LEARNING
Project components (Interviews 16,23) - Well I think that we learned
Scientific and
technical advice
everything about the dam. That was a huge learning curve, we went from
knowing nothing to knowing so much (Interview 16).
Ways of knowing (Interviews 23,25) - The other thing that was
fascinating to me was traditional knowledge. Now many would argue that
it was not put to proper use in this hearing, but we are experimenting with
that. And understanding kind of the interplay between traditional
knowledge and scientific knowledge was very interesting, and also some
insight into the culture of at least one First Nation, maybe actually two
(Interview 23).
EA process (Interviews 14, 15,17,18, 19,21,25,28, 30) - I mean this is
Legal,
administrative and the first generating station, so if another came up within a reasonable
political procedures amount of time when we still had a lot of the experience around from this
one, I think then we could probably design a better review, in terms of
making it more expeditious (Interview 19).
First Nations consultation - In terms of section 35 consultation, we
learned a lot about what that might be. It is ill defined in the country. We
tty something, to do as well as we could, given the circumstance, but we
certainly learned. We learned a lot about that (Interview 20).
Reaffirmation of understanding of process and social dynamics
(Interviews 19,26) - I wasnt surprised at vety much actually, Because
once I knew the direction things were heading, I was thinking Oh, oh, we
are going to run into grief. And in most cases that is exactly the way it
worked, including the interrogatory process.. .And I base that strictly on
past experience. Why would it be any different this time? (Interview 19)
Biophysical, social Environment- And on a technical level, we learned information about the
North. In fact we are learning about caribou right now, because peoples
and economic
level of understanding, level of appreciation [about this valued ecosystem
knowledge
component] was elevated (Interview 20).
Environmental impacts (Interviews 21,23) - [E]dge effects, for example,
is something I had not really understood.. .1 had enough working
knowledge, but the hearings were tremendously helpful in terms of that
(Interview 23)
Cumulative impacts (Interviews 21,28) - I mean I got a whole lesson in
cumulative impacts assessment, and the whole issue of ... whats the
word... when you have got to much and when you decide that. And
baseline coverage (Interview 21).
97
Biophysical, social
and economic
knowledge
(continued)
Follow up
Dynamics of northern development (Interviews 17, 22,24, 29) - I gained

a whole new perspective with respect to Aboriginal people, their issues,
their concerns, their passions. And frankly, I quite appreciated it. I
thought it was a very important part of the hearing, and a learning for us
all (Interview 22).
Need for and alternatives to (Interviews 22, 30) - [One important
contribution involved] looking at a different transmission line routing that
one of the Commissioners brought to the forum and asked Hydro to
address that, the advantages and disadvantages of doing that. So actually
through the EA another sort of position or alternative was put on the
table (Interview 22)
Demand management (Interviews 22,27) - [A second contribution was]
all the discussion and work that Hydro had done on their demand
management and portfolio management alternatives. This [discussion
was] based mainly on the good work that one of the funded participants. I
think they were positive things that might not have been brought to the
fore if we hadnt had a hearing, or maybe more importantly if we hadnt
had funded participants to participate in the hearings (Interview 22)
Manitoba Hydro (Interviews 15,27) - [I prepared, in part, by learning
about] Manitoba Hydro and how they functioned, what their development
intentions were going to be, what the lines of communication and
decisions were between Hydro and inside the Manitoba government
(Interview 15).
Peoples capacity to act (Interviews 14,16,20,25) - And, I think that the
other quality I learned is, you know that people surprise you. And I was
surprised by the amount of - 1 probably shouldnt have been - 1 was
surprised by the amount of anxiety and hurting and emotions that were
there (Interview 14).
Monitoring - (Interview 28)
C om m unicative L earning
Insight into ones

I own interest
Organizational skills (Interviews 23, 27) - I think it probably bolsters

[my organizations] confidence in its ability to affect policy, to the extent
that the final recommendations reflect some of the evidence that was
presented in our intervention (Interview 27).
Organizational interest in EA (Interviews 16,23, 24) - We are starting to
develop a language for talking about environment as a cost, and socialcultural issues as a cost. We are coming to a way to put it together - not
always to recognize the two things and keep them separate, but actually be
able to some how put them together(Interview 16).
How to prepare for future EA (Interviews 16,30) - In fact I am writing
up a plan right now for the different ways that we would be involved in
the future. Because we dont know for sure when it is coming, but we
know it will, and it will be in the next five years or so (Interview 30).
98
Insight into the

interest of others
Communication
strategies and
methods
Social mobilization
Strengthening the process (Interviews 18,21) - We all learned a fair bit

about the general process, and hopefully in a few years I will learn more.
But that is a bit simplistic (Interview 18).
Interactions between government (Interviews 14,15,19,20,25, 26)- We
learned about a situation where the expectations of participants were that
there would be increased federal participation, so they had expectation of
the federal government as overseeing the provincial process, which was
not the case (Interview 20).
Interaction among different organizations (Interviews 23,29, 30) - And,
talk about organizational learning, not my organization, but the PUB and
Manitoba Hydro, I think have learned a lot from our intervention, and in
the last year they have just extensively rammed up their demand
management program, and there is just no comparison (Interview 29)
How to become better engaged in process (Interviews 21,27, 30) - Our
organization learned how to help a community get engaged, because they
came to us saying they wanted to participate, but they didnt know the
first thing about it. So that was really good, and it filtered down through
the community (Interview 30)
Deficiencies in policy regime (Interviews 27, 29) - There is another
category of information which is m ore difficult to present to the hearing
and that is the values based information... What type of community we
want to live in, what kind of energy systems do we need to supply the
kind of future that we see for ourselves, and are centralized systems of
energy production really appropriate for a sustainable society, or will we
want more distributed generation in which there is more local control and
more local access rather than having these decisions centralized in
necessarily rather bureaucratic and technically oriented organizations.
And so, trying to get those types of issues incorporated is more difficult
(Interview 27)
Beyond this technical understanding, instrumental learning includes outcomes involving legal,
administrative, and political procedures. This type of learning is important to a project-specific
EA, as it is essential to know how to participate in the EA; participants must be familiar with
how the process functions, and with the mechanisms through which they can be engaged in the
review.
Nine participants suggested that because of their experience, they learned how to better navigate
the assessment process. Beyond the general example of how the process works, listed in Table
4.7, participants identified a range of procedural learning outcomes, some of which share themes
discussed in previous sections, including
99
issues surrounding the IR process (see section 4.5.1.3) can be linked to identified
learning outcomes. While some concluded that this approach is inappropriate - The
whole interrogatory approach was a learning experience .. .1 am not sure that the IR
process is an appropriate process for EIA. I understand the reason for it, to try and get
information out, but the amount of information generated just overwhelmed people
(Interview 14) - others were galvanized to strengthen the exercise: In theory, the IR
process should save hearing time. In a court process that is the purpose of IRs - to
answer questions before you go to court so you save court time. And it should be the
same here. (Interview 18), and,
issues surrounding argumentation (section 4.5.2) and timing (section 4.6.1) led people to
identify procedural shortcomings - I think the CEC is going to look pretty hard and fast
at its rules. For example, the process is intended to be open, and that is good, you hear
all comers. But when people are making presentations as opposed to calling evidence, it
was an incredibly tedious process to have each person making a presentation, being
cross examined by firstly the applicants, the proponents, and secondly by each and every
other intervener. It was my opinion, probably pretty intimidating for people who merely
wanted to be there for the purposes of largely expressing an opinion, and it took many
hours, time that I dont think was particularly well spent in cross examining those
people (Interview 21).
Like the more technical skills, knowledge of procedures is significant in other venues.
Familiarity with assessment procedures can facilitate participation in future CEC processes.
Experience with quasi-judicial hearings can contribute to other exercises in discursive
democracy, including the Public Utility Board or National Energy Board hearings. Thus, these
learning outcomes are significant not only to the individual, but to organizations which engage
in these activities.
With respect to this case study, this subcategory of learning is unique, in that two participants
identified it as a specific objective of their participation (Interviews 23, 30). Because this was
the first of a series of hydro developments to be subjected to an EA, their involvement in this
review was predicated on the idea that they could contribute to a body of learning about how to
hold hearings. These participants envisioned that the hearings would be a learning experience
100
for all, and wanted to contribute their knowledge of these processes to strengthen the overall EA
process.
Communicative learning relates to social interaction, and includes four categories (1) insight into
ones own interest, (2) insight into the interests of others, (3) communication strategies and
methods, and (4) social mobilization. As illustrated in Table 4.7, individuals experienced a
range of communicative learning outcomes associated with participation in this EA. As these
learning outcomes contribute to the development of the organization or the development of the
larger system of which the organization is a part, they will be discussed in detail in sections 4.7.2
and 6.2.4.
4.7.2
Policy-oriented learning: Did the EA contribute to policy-oriented
learning?
As discussed in Chapter 2, policy-oriented learning involves thoughts or intentions related to
policy objectives, that result from experiences. While the recent timing of this assessment
restricts longitudinal consideration of how the EA contributed to policy-oriented change, as
noted in Table 4.7, participants identified learning outcomes involving other peoples interests,
and social mobilization. Three areas of learning outcomes that related to policy objectives
include intergovernmental relationships, social networks, and policy change.
Six participants identified learning outcomes that focused on the nature of the relationship
between the federal and provincial governments. As discussed in section 4.3, the coordination
of EA processes between the federal and provincial governments resulted in procedural
uncertainty, and was found to be of little benefit to the CEC.
As noted above, the EA was harmonized under the terms of the Canada - Manitoba Agreement
on Environmental Assessment Cooperation (2000). Because this was the first time the 2000
agreement was implemented, participants were uncertain about how the federal and provincial
governments would interact. Learning surrounding intergovernmental relations relates to this
uncertainty. One participant suggested that:
Another thing we learned was the CEC process - and the Wuskwatim hearings in
particular - were in fact not under, or part of, the cooperative EA agreement
between Canada and Manitoba (Interview 15).
101
This sentiment was reaffirmed by the quotation from the final report of the CEC (Clean
Environment Commission 2004, pp.7-8).
The Commission agrees that the cooperative assessment process in Manitoba is not
easily understood and found little evidence of its practical application during the
review of the Wuskwatim Projects. The Commission realized little benefit from the
cooperative approach that was apparently undertaken in connection with this review.
However, the harmonization agreement calls for the two levels of governments to coordinate the
steps in the review, not participate in each others assessment steps. Although the provincial
legislation deemed public hearings were necessary, the federal process did not; as such, the
federal government chose not to participate in the provincial hearings. Nonetheless, this
decision was not communicated clearly to assessment participants, who identified unmet
expectations, and expressed a disenchantment with the review process due to this lack of federal
participation (see also Table 4.7). Another participant observed, the Canada Manitoba
Agreement on environmental assessment cooperation is not the easiest agreement to follow.
Uncertainty resulted in six participants suggesting there is a need to ensure participants are
aware of the governments roles in the review (see also Fitzpatrick and Sinclair, in press). A
subset of this group went further, suggesting that in future, they would seek a more coordinated
approach to the assessment, whereby rather than only coordinate steps in the assessment,
government would coordinate assessment activities.
A second category of policy-oriented learning surrounded social networks. Manitoba has a
history of advocacy coalitions in the environmental community. Manitoba Eco-Network serves
as an umbrella organization for 46 groups with an interest in environmental issues. This
organization provides physical infrastructure for member groups, including meeting space and
equipment, maintains a resource library and public registry, and strengthens communication
between various environmental interest groups. This type of relationship was evident during the
EA of the Wuskwatim projects, as four participants represented coalitions among different
organizations, one of which is part of the Manitoba Eco-Network community (Table 4.3).
Building on this foundation, three participants expressed a desire to strengthen interaction
among different organizations engaged in the process. Opportunities for strengthened social
networks included:
improving interaction among existing coalitions,

102
providing additional capacity to aid non-governmental organizations, particularly

northern-based groups, in intervening in the process,
strengthening interactions among all non-governmental organizations in the process,

particularly between organizations interested in economic and environmental issues, and
developing a formal coalition of environmental non-governmental organizations which

share an interest in hydro activities.
As discussed in section 4.5.2, support from other organizations in the policy coalition is
important for strengthening public involvement (Alexander, 1999; Busenberg, 2000; Krasny &
Lee, 2002; Poncelet, 2001). The desire to strengthen these coalitions is in line with findings of
other interactive policy processes (see for example Michaels, Mason, & Solecki (2001)).
A third outlet for policy-oriented learning stemmed from a desire to improve government policy
objectives. Participants expressed a desire to strengthen the environmental planning regime, and
enact, develop and reinvigorate institutions that foster social learning.
With respect to environmental planning, a number of participants expressed a desire to
strengthen project-specific EAs. The most pressing issue was cumulative effects assessment (see
section 4.5.1), including both the methodology and scope of the analysis. One participant
suggested that a cumulative effects assessment should include past impacts (see the discussion
surrounding the scope of the review, section 4.4.2), and operation of the current system. This
sentiment was echoed by other participants (Interview 15), including the CEC, which in its final
report advocated the need for licensing of the hydro operating system and the establishment of
protocols for cumulative effects assessment (Clean Environment Commission, 2004, p. 127).
A second issue related to the role of the EA in environmental management. Three participants
advocated the need for a strategic approach to energy issues (Interviews 15, 27,29).
Specifically, rather than addressing the environmental impacts associated with the individual
developments proposed by Manitoba Hydro, participants expressed the desire for a
comprehensive energy plan, and an EA of that plan.
That is inevitably what happens, that these things are done project by project, and
taken in isolation, which is what those who stand to benefit from the developments
want to see happen. Each project then becomes subjected to a series of rather
103
narrow technical criteria, and it leaves off the table the larger questions (Interview
27).
Connected to this need for an energy plan is a need for broad social learning related to
Manitobans use of energy sources. Linked to testimony and evidence surrounding demand
management initiatives, steps have been taken on a number of fronts (such as PUB hearings) to
challenge existing perceptions regarding individual power consumption. Absent from this effort
is a venue to further efforts directed at promoting sustainable development (Interview 29).
Participants are seeking institutional changes in governance systems to advance environmental
(in this context energy-based) thinking outside of a project specific EA. This is consistent with
literature that supports strategic EA (see for example Gibson (2001)).
4.7.3
Discussion
Participants identified a variety of learning outcomes associated with the EA of the Wuskwatim
projects. These outcomes are consistent with those identified by participants of other EA
processes (Diduck & Mitchell 2003, Fitzpatrick 2001). Technical knowledge, an inevitable
outcome of participation in this type of process, included understanding about the projects and
their impacts. Policy-oriented learning, concerned with changes in the constitution and/or
beliefs of advocacy coalitions over time, included two categories of communicative learning insight into the interest of others, and social mobilization. Although insufficient time has passed
to explore how these ideas contribute to policy change, the outcomes are important because not
only do they relate an experience to learning, but they also contribute to an agenda for change
that extends beyond the individual and the organization to the advocacy coalition and policy
level.
4.8
Conclusion
This chapter began by introducing the EA of the Wuskwatim projects (section 4.1). Although
Manitoba has a long history of dam development, and EA, described in section 4.2, this was the
first assessment of a hydro dam development. Furthermore, it was the first assessment subject to
the 2000 Canada - Manitoba Agreement on Environmental Assessment Cooperation, resulting in
a federal - provincial harmonized review.
104
A discussion of the assessment process serves as the foundation for exploring learning
opportunities related to EA. As noted in section 4.4.1, the public had numerous opportunities to
become engaged in the review; despite these efforts, the assessment guidelines and the
participants beliefs regarding what should be addressed in the review were inconsistent. Much
effort was expended in challenging the scope of the review, rather than exploring higher order
arguments. While steps were taken to ensure that participants had access to information and
alternative points of view, these efforts could be strengthened through a variety of mechanisms,
including providing more direction to recipients of participant funding and increasing the role of
government technical reviewers in the public dialogue.
A significant body of data surrounded the EA, and steps were taken to ensure that the public
could access this material, including an on-line registry (section 4.5). Additional steps, however,
would have contributed to material situated in the needs of assessment participants, including
coordinating public registry systems, and developing third party summaries of positions at key
points. Alternative points of view were encouraged through an extensive participant funding
program, but focusing money at generating research would have provided for a more informed
debate about assessment issues. Beyond participant funding, active involvement by government
in the hearings could have contributed to issues-based discussions.
Participants of the EA of the Wuskwatim projects provided direction on how to improve the
critical nature of the review process, and promote equity among assessment participants (section
4.6). The timing of review was felt to be necessary, although research identified opportunities to
streamline the process as participants become more adept at the process. Findings suggest there
is a need to create a public system for establishing best practices so that the pubic can more
easily challenge assessment content. Finally, procedural-focused recommendations related to
strengthening the equity of the review process were made.
A variety of learning outcomes was associated with the EA of the Wuskwatim projects (section
4.7). Instrumental learning included both technical and procedural knowledge, useful for future
EAs of hydroelectric development, and other venues for participatory democracy. Policyoriented learning, one subset of communicative learning, included a desire to strengthen
advocacy coalitions, and renew efforts for broad environmentally-based policy changes. The
discussion of learning outcomes will continue in Chapter 6, when I consider organizational
105
learning associated with participants in EA. However, the next chapter provides a similar
analysis of the EA of the Snap Lake project.
106
Chapter
THE SNAP LAKE DIAMONDS PROJECT
This chapter introduces the Snap Lake project, first by briefly describing both the project and the
proponents. A review of diamond development in the Northwest Territories includes
consideration of the general environmental impacts of this type of initiative, and a summary of
the processes used to assess recent projects. This discussion situates the Snap Lake Diamonds
project, and its EA, in recent territorial development history. A description of the process used
to assess the mine follows.
As with Chapter 4, opportunities for learning arising from participation in this project are
reviewed, including consideration of criteria related to the individual and learning environment.
This discussion illustrates that as participants become more versed in EA, and as the process
includes greater opportunities for interactive policy making, participants are able to achieve
greater degrees of consensus regarding assessment definitions, and common depictions of
assessment activities. These experiences, in turn, contribute to individual and policy-oriented
learning outcomes associated with the project. Results will be compared with those of the
Wuskwatim projects in Chapter 6.
5.1
Developing the context
The Snap Lake Project involves the construction and operation of a diamond mine 220 km
northeast of Yellowknife, at the headwaters of the Lockhart River drainage system (see Figure
5.1). When construction is complete, this mine will be the third diamond mine operating in the
Northwest Territories.
The project will be located on a site of about 650 hectares (DeBeers Canada Inc., 2002).
Specific components of the proposed development include an underground mine, materials and
ore storage areas, waste rock sites, sewage treatment plants, fuel and explosive storage, power
plant and worker accommodations.
107
North Pole -&
/!
/
/
/
/
/
CANADA
A RC 77C
O CM A f
NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
Scale
20D
km l_x
_i_
N
200
400
600
km
/ gggyfljrt Sej
M ackenzie
flay
^.S',
vi
> , /f
&
LEGEND
. Territorial capital
Other populated places
VV .
S rea t
B ear LakeV^
Arctic Circle
-o ,
o>
Rae
Lakes.
NUNAVUT
*Wekweti
V f~ i
International boundary
W h a Tl
Provincial, territorial boundary
^ e Ef e ? r *{
;
\'
Â Â iitutseikte
http://atlas.gc.ca
/G r e a t Stave Lake
'V
BC
T -
-J,
Al.BERTA
j SA SKATCHEW AN
) 2002. Her Majesty th e Queen In Right of C anada, Natural Resources Canada,
Figure 5.1: Location of the Snap Lake diamond mine (Natural Resources Canada,
2002)
108
De Beers Canada Mining Inc. is part of the De Beers group of companies, a privately owned
organization. The parent company, located in Johannesburg, South Africa, has been involved in
the diamond industry since 1888. Internationally, De Beers currently operates 20 diamond
mines, controlling over half worlds the annual production of diamonds. The conglomerate
gained a controlling interest in the Snap Lake Diamonds Project in 2000 from Winspear
Diamonds Inc, a Canadian company. The following year, De Beers purchased the (outstanding)
minority share of the project from Aber Diamond Corporation, to gain full corporate ownership
of the property.
5.2
History of environmental assessment in the Northwest Territories
As noted above, the Snap Lake project is the third diamond mine in the Northwest Territories
and Canada. Given the relatively recent exploitation of this resource, all diamond developments
in Canada have been subject to an EA. However, concurrent with this rapid diamond
development in the Northwest Territories is an evolving management strategy, including a
changing framework for undertaking EAs. A review of the first two diamond EAs includes a
brief discussion of the changing assessment regime, including a summary of who conducted the
review, who was involved in the review, and how public participation was facilitated. The
purpose of this summary is to illustrate the previous assessment experiences of participants in
the EA of the Snap Lake Diamonds Project.
5.2.1
EA of the BHP NWT diamond project
The EA of the first diamond proposal, the BHP NWT Diamond Project, occurred between
January 1994 and August 1996. The BHP NWT Diamond Project was subject to a panel review
under the terms of the first federal EA process, Environmental Assessment and Review Panel
Guidelines Order (1984). A four person independent panel, with expertise in NWT Aboriginal
peoples, geology, resource and environmental issues, among others, evaluated the proponents
impact statement, weighed evidence related to potential impacts, and recommended to the
federal Minister of the Environment that the project be allowed to proceed, subject to 29
recommendations regarding the project and related issues.
The assessment included three key opportunities for public participation. Scoping involved
written submissions and meetings held in 8 communities. A technical review of the impact
statement was conducted. Finally, public hearings were held over 18 days in 9 communities.
109
During the assessment process, the panel received over 125 written submissions, and listened to
over 410 verbal presentations by various participants.
Fifty-two organizations and numerous individuals participated in the public hearings to review
the BHP NWT Diamond Project (Table 5.1). Participants received funding totaling $255,000 to
engage in discussions surrounding the scope of the EA ($105,000 to 14 groups) and review the
impact statement ($150,000 to 12 groups) (Couch, 2002).
As with public participation in other EA processes (see for example Fitzpatrick and Sinclair,
2003), concerns arose regarding funding (O'Reilly, 1996), timing of resource disbursement, and
the timing of public consultation. In reviewing the comments of participants, the Canadian
Institute for Resources Law (1997) noted that while participation was inclusive of affected
interests, a greater balance should have been struck between imposing deadlines and providing
adequate time, and providing adequate financial resources for participants through the
assessment and regulatory process. OReilly (1998) takes this point further, concluding that
[f]ew if any of the participants came away from the EA with any satisfaction, including the
proponent.
5.2.2
EA of the Diavik Diamonds Mines Inc project
By the time the second diamond project, the proposed Diavik Diamonds Mines Inc (DDMI)
development triggered a federal review, the Environmental Assessment Review Process
Guidelines Order (1984) had been replaced by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act
(1992). Under the terms of this EA process, the development was subject to a comprehensive
study. Consistent with the legislative requirements, federal departments involved in issuing
leases, licences and permits for the project, in this case Indian Affairs and Northern
Development Canada (INAC), the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), and Natural
Resources Canada (NRCan), facilitated the assessment.
110
Table 5.1: Organizations involved in the BHP hearings (BHP Environmental

Assessment Panel, 1996, pp. 79-85).
GOVERNMENT
Canadian Coast
Guard
DFO
COMMUNITY &
ABORIGINAL
GOVERNMENT
City of Edmonton
City of Yellowknife
Environment Canada
Coronation Impact
Review Committee
Government of the
INAC
Dene Nation
NRCan
Dogrib Treaty 11
Council
Kugluktuk
Lutsel Ke Dene
Council
Lutsel Ke Dene First
Nation
Metis Nation of the
Royal Canadian
Mounted Police
Dettah
Ndilo
Nunavut Water Board

Transition Team
Rae Edzo
Rae Lakes
Snare Lake
Town of Hay River
WhaTi
Yellowknives Dene
First Nation
NON GOVERNMENTAL
ORGANIZATIONS
INDUSTRY
Alberta Building and

Construction Trades Council
Alternatives North
BHP
Association of Professional
Engineers, Geologists and
Geophysists of the NWT
Business Committee for
Support of BHP
Canadian Congress for
Learning Opportunities for
Women
Concerned Group of Citizens in
Support of BHP
Mining Association of Canada
Northern Environmental
Coalition -World Wildlife Fund
Coalition -Ecology North
Coalition -Canadian Nature
Federation
Coalition -Canadian Arctic
Resources Committee
Coalition -Dene Culture
Institute
NWT Caribou Outfitters
Association
NWT Chamber of Commerce
NWT Chamber of Mines
NWT Community Mobilization
Partnership Society
NWT Construction Association
NWT Enviro Watch
NWT Federation of Labour
Roman Catholic Diocese of
Mackenzie
Status of Women Council of the
NWT
West Kitikmeot Slave Study
Society
Yellowknife Chamber of
Commerce
Braden-Burry
Expediting Services
Clark Builders
Finning
Yellowknife
Economic
Development
Authority
Ill
An EA steering committee was struck to recognize the desire of Aboriginal organizations to be

actively engaged in the assessment process. This committee included representatives of
Aboriginal organizations24, the Responsible Authorities (RAs)25, and the government of the
Northwest Territories. While the steering committee did not have decision-making authority, it
served as an advisory body reporting to the RA Caucus on all matters relating to the
comprehensive study review process for the Diavik Diamonds Project (Department of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, & Natural Resources
Canada, 1999, App. B, p. 16). Meeting on a monthly basis, this committee advised the RAs on
how to address outstanding issues, including how to mange the public consultation process.
The public had an opportunity to contribute to the scope of the assessment through written
submissions. A technical review of the impact statement was conducted through technical
meetings. These meetings focused on key issues of interest to assessment participants, and were
held in different communities. Evening sessions were added to allow members of the general
public to ask questions and engage in discussions with experts. However, no formal hearings
were held. Following the completion of the comprehensive study report, the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Agency facilitated a one month public review of the report,
consistent with the terms of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
Money was offered to different participants, although this was not required in the legislation.
Aboriginal and non-governmental organizations received funds to participate.
The EA of the DDMI project greatly expanded opportunities for the public to be engaged in the
assessment process. This consultation strategy, however, was not implemented without
concerns. As noted by the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board (MVEIRB),
the adaptive approach taken by the Responsible Authorities, and the steering committee, resulted
in a process that fell short of public expectations for an independent assessment that provided a
clear and consistent process for public involvement (Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact
Review Board, 1999, p. 13). To support this assertion, the Board observed that while the steering
24Although not all organizations chose to accept, the steering committee was open to a representative of
each of the following organizations: the Dogrib Treaty 11 Council, Kitikmeot Inuit Association, Lutsel
Ke Dene First Nation, North Slave Metis Alliance, and the Yellowknives Dene First Nation.
25 A Responsible Authority is a federal authority which is a proponent, provides funding, administers land
or issues licenses necessary for a project. As discussed above, the RAs for the Diavik project were
INAC, DFO and NRCan.
112
committee was designed to include Aboriginal organizations in the assessment design, the
institution served in an advisory, not a management, role. Furthermore, concerns arose
regarding the adjustment of the assessment schedule to include workshops. These changes,
noted the Board, although designed to address public concerns, may have confused the process.
Finally, the Board questioned the timing of the assessment process, suggesting that the need of
the proponent, DDMI, may have unduly influenced the timing of the release of the
comprehensive study report.
5.3
Environmental assessment processes
Following the signing of the Gwichin Agreement (1992), and the Sahtu and Metis Agreement
(1993), the government of Canada implemented the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management
Act (1998) (MVRMA) with the intention of providing northerners decision-making participation
and responsibility in environmental and natural-resource matters (Mackenzie Valley
Environmental Impact Review Board, no date) For the most part, the MVRMA replaces the
jurisdiction of CEAA, and provides a different vehicle for land and water management in the
Northwest Territories. The MVEIRB now facilitates EA in the Mackenzie Valley, which
includes the Northwest Territories portion of the Slave Geological Province. This public review
board has a minimum of 7 members, one half nominated by Aboriginal organizations, and one
half nominated by government.
EA, conducted under the MVRMA, includes up to three steps, with each subsequent step giving
more scrutiny to the proposed development. Step one is a preliminary screening (Mackenzie
Valley Environmental Impact Review Board, 2004). Conducted by the Mackenzie Valley Land
and Water Board, this step is an initial review of a proposal to assess potential impacts on the
environment, and determine the level of concern associated with the development. The process
requires proponents to consult the public prior to submission of an application. As part of the
review, the agency assessing the project must also consult potentially affected parties, including
land owners, local government and hunters and trappers associations. If it is determined that the
project might have significant impacts on the environment, or might trigger public concerns, a
project must undergo an environmental assessment26 (step 2). An environmental assessment
26Environmental assessment and environmental impact review are terms defined in the MVRMA, as such,
they have specific meaning beyond that used in this dissertation. To distinguish between the colloquial
uses of this terminology, terms will be written out in full, and italicized when used related to the
assessment steps identified in the MVRMA.
113
identifies, evaluates and reports potential ecological, social, cultural, and economic impacts,
and the mitigation measures to reduce those impacts (Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact
Review Board, 2004, p.22). Conducted by the review Board, an environmental assessment
generally includes five activities: a preliminary scoping of issues, a conformity analysis27 of the
developers assessment report, conducted by the Review Board, a technical review of the
developers assessment report, including information requests, a prehearing conference, and
hearings.
If the Board determines a project is likely to have significant impacts on the environment or
likely to cause significant public concern, it may trigger an environmental impact review (step
3). An independent panel, appointed by the MVEIRB, conducts this review28. As with an
environmental assessment, an environmental impact review generally includes a preliminary
scoping of issues, a conformity analysis of the environmental impact statement, usually
conducted by the independent panel, a technical review of the impact statement, including
information requests, a prehearing conference, and hearings.
In addition to being conducted by a different body, environmental impact reviews differ from
environmental assessments in terminology (developers assessment report versus environmental
impact statement), including the development of a public participation program by the panel, and
including opportunity for participant funding. To date, no project has triggered an
environmental impact review.
The Snap Lake project was the third diamond development to be assessed, and the first reviewed
in its entirety by the MVEIRB29. The project was subject to an environmental assessment due to
significant public concern regarding cultural well being, lack of environmental assessment, net
effects on government, sustainable development (Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board,
personal communication, May 23,2001). This assessment process resulted in changes to
assessment activities (e.g. the use of IRs), and decision-making processes (the role of the
MVEIRB) from the previous two diamond EAs. In addition to considering the procedural
27 A conformity analysis evaluates the developers assessment report against the guidelines issued by the
MVEIRB.
28 W hile the panel consists o f independent panelists, members o f the MVEIRB may fill any or all o f these
appointments.
29 Board completed review o f m odifications to the BHP project in February 2001.
114
histoiy, however, it is important highlight the scientific and technical commonalities and
differences between the first two developments, and the Snap Lake project. All three projects
involve the extraction of diamonds from kimberlite situated in the Slave Geological province.
The BHP project involves the use of an open pit mining technique, the Diavik project includes
both open pit and subsurface mining, and the Snap lake project exclusively uses subsurface
mining. Although situated in the same geological province, the first two mines are located
within the Coppermine River watershed; Snap Lake is located in the Lockhart River watershed.
These procedural, spatial, and technological differences suggest that while the assessment
participants may have been familiar with the environmental impacts of diamond development,
stemming from participation in previous diamond EAs, this review included nuances that could
contribute to organizational learning.
A timeline of the key activities surrounding the EA of the Snap Lake project is provided in Table
5.2. It is important to note that this EA shares key steps in the assessment process with the first
case study, including the scoping of issues leading to creation of environmental impact statement
guidelines, a technical review of the environmental impact statement, and public hearings.
115
Table 5.2: Timeline of events in the review of the Snap Lake diamonds project
(Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board, 2003a).
Development of impact statement

2001
January
Proposal submitted, February 2

April
Proposal referred to MVEIRB, May 23
Draft assessment terms of reference issued June 25
July
Final assessment terms of reference issued September 2
October
2002
January
April
July
October
Environmental assessment report submitted February 26

Information Requests (IRs): round one issued March 25
Developer's assessment report deemed in non-compliance
April 15
IRs: round two issued May 1
IRs: round one response June 12
IRs: round two response July 30
IRs: round three a issued August 8
IRs round three a response September 23
EA Report deemed in conformance, September 24
IRs: round three b issued September 25
IRs: round three b response October 17
Technical sessions November 25 - December 6
2003
January
April
July
October
2004
Completion of technical reports February 14

Pre-hearing conference March 26 and 27
Public hearings April 28 - May 2.
Board Decision July 24.

Federal acceptance of decision
Regulatory Process
116
5.4
Definitive aspects: Establishing shared meaning
5.4.1
Desocializing: How was the public engaged in the assessment process?
The MVEIRB is directed (by the MVRMA) to ensure that public concerns are addressed in EA.
As a result, public consultation is a strong component of environmental reviews conducted under
this legislation. Participation in the EA of the Snap Lake project was encouraged through:
written submissions regarding the scope of the assessment,
written submissions regarding the conformity of the impact statement to the guidelines
(* see discussion below),
written questions and answers regarding the impact statement, called Information
Requests (IRs),
oral dialogue, supported by written material during 10 days of technical sessions, and
oral presentations, supported by written material during 5 days of hearings.
Seventeen organizations and many individuals were engaged in the environmental assessment of
the Snap Lake project (Table 5.3). The same organizations were involved in the BHP and/or
Diavik projects, and as such, had experience with EA, and knowledge of the impacts of diamond
mining.
Factors that contribute both positively and negatively to the inclusiveness of the public
engagement program will be discussed, and include:
the absence of public scoping meetings (section 5.4.2),
the inclusion of public technical sessions (section 5.5.1.4),
a lack of participant assistance (section 5.5.2),
adaptations for working in a cross cultural setting (discussed in section 5.5.6.1), and
an illustration of how participants contribute to decision making (discussed in sections
5.4.2).
117
Table 5.3: Organizations involved as interveners or directly affected parties in the EA

of the Snap Lake project (Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board,
2003a, p.3).
COMMUNITY &
NON GOVERNMENTAL
ABORIGINAL
ORGANIZATIONS
GOVERNMENT
Canadian Arctic Resources
Yellowknives Dene
INAC %*
First Nation *
Committee J *
NWT and Nunavut
North Slave Metis
Chamber of Mines
Alliance
World Wildlife Fund
Dogrib Treaty 11
NRCan
Canada - Yellowknife *
Council
World Wildlife Fund
Environment Canada Lutsel Ke Dene First
Canada - Toronto
Nation t *
t*
Northwest Territory
Government of the
Metis Nation
Northwest
Territories t *
Metis Nation, Raw-Edzo
Local #64
Dene Nation
( |) attended July 20 ,2001 meeting about the work plan
(*) commented on assessment terms of reference
GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRY
De Beers
Canada Inc. %*
o
Ph
P
5.4.2 Participatory: Did individuals contribute to the scope of the assessment?

The draft work plan and terms of reference for the developers assessment report were released
July 25,2001, and over a 30 day period, the public was invited to submit written comments.
The decision by the MVEIRB to solicit public input only through written communication was an
issue for one organization, the Canadian Arctic Resources Committee (CARC). At a public
meeting held just prior to the release of the work plan and terms of reference (on July 20, 2001),
two participants observed that communities have a preference for oral processes (MVEIRB,
personal communication, July 21,2001). Following the close of the review period, CARC made
a formal request for public scoping meetings, noting
CARC does not believe that it is appropriate that public participation in scoping the
Snap Lake project should be based solely on written submissions. Northern
communities rely on personal relationships and communications, often where
English is not the preferred language (Kevin OReilly, personal communication,
August 21,2001).
118
Lutsel Ke Dene First Nation {personal communication, August 27,2001) supported this
petition. Despite this appeal, the MVEIRB {personal communication, September 18, 2001)
decided against holding public scoping meetings, observing it had incorporated opportunities for
public comment at other points in the assessment process.
As noted in Table 5.3,7 of the 10 organizations participating in the hearings submitted written
comments regarding the draft work plan and terms of reference for the review. Numerous
requests were addressed in the revised terms of references, including
a request for a revised approach to the spatial scope of assessment (World Wildlife
Fund, Yellowknife),
the need to discuss ecologically representative areas, specifically in the wildlife and
wildlife habitat section (World Wildlife Fund, Yellowknife),
a discussion of forecasting models in the cumulative effects section (World Wildlife

Fund, Yellowknife),
the use of milestone days rather than calendar days in timeline summary (NRCan),
a desire to have information about die companys corporate history in the developers
assessment report (Yellowknife Dene First Nation),
changes to the approach to traditional knowledge (Lutsel Ke Dene First Nation),

discussed below, and,
a request for a discussion around diamond sorting and marketing diamonds

(Government of the Northwest Territories).
Comments not addressed by the revised guidelines include the request by Environment Canada
for clarification of MVEIRBs position on compensation, and a discussion of how significance is
determined by the MVEIRB with respect to public concern (Yellowknife Dene First Nation).
A comparison between the draft and final work plan and terms of reference illustrated numerous
modifications, including:
changes to the approach to traditional knowledge: The company was required to give
full and equal consideration to traditional knowledge. Furthermore, rather than
119
describe how traditional knowledge contributed to the companys evaluation of

environmental impacts, De Beers was directed to present both the scientific and
traditional perspectives on predicted impacts wherever both types of information are
available, and should refrain from weighing the relative merits of predictions
(Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board, 2001, p. 6),
the addition of two environmental impact topics: the regulatory regime and corporate
compliance,
specific additions to identified environmental impacts of interest: Components were

added to various subsections listing the requirements for discussion surrounding specific
environmental impacts, including hazardous materials, air quality and climate, terrain,
water quality and quantity, aquatic habitat, cultural resources, land and resource use,
economy, cumulative impacts, abandonment and restoration and follow up programs,
changes in the approach to timelines: The timeline was modified to emphasize

milestone time periods, rather than calendar days, as requested by NRCan, and,
general changes in document formatting: Sections were merged and reordered to

facilitate document readability.
Unlike the EA of the Wuskwatim project, concerns about the scope of the assessment did not
persist through the review process. A number of factors may have influenced this situation.
First, the MVEIRB made numerous changes to the terms of reference, as directed by participant
submissions. The strength of this process was acknowledged in a post assessment survey
conducted by the MVEIRB, as participants identified the incorporation of participants needs in
the terms of reference as one strength of the review (Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact
Review Board, 2005).
A second factor that strengthened support around the guidelines was the experience of
assessment participants. As noted by one, the guidelines set the stage for the EA; as such,
participants expended a significant amount of energy ensuring that the terms of reference
addressed all areas of interest. And again, we want to make sure from our perspective that the
information was gathered that would allow us to do our assessment (Interview 7). Two other
participants identified the development of the guidelines as an important time to contribute to the
assessment process (Interviews 3,4).
120
Finally, one person observed that while the guidelines were comprehensive, each issue was not
addressed to the same depth in the developers assessment report. The proponent worked to
provide participants with the level of information necessary to determine the impacts of the
projects and identify appropriate mitigation. However, varying amounts of emphasis were put
on different amounts of information (Interview 2). Therefore, dialogue was focused on issues
that were of the most concern to assessment participants.
5.4.3
Discussion
Numerous opportunities were available to members of the public to be engaged in the

environmental assessment of the Snap Lake project. Beyond being engaged in the review,
however, participants were encouraged to contribute to the scope of the assessment through a
critique of draft work plans and the terms of reference. Although this process did not include
scoping meetings, the MVEIRB accepted many of the suggestions received through written
submissions. In doing this, the process became more participatory in nature, as assessment
participants were able to contribute their learning agenda to the overall process. By ensuring
that the terms of reference met the needs of assessment participants, the MVEIRB strengthened
consensus surrounding what should be addressed in the review. As a result, rather than debate
definitive issues, energy could be expended on other types of argumentation.
This case study also reaffirms Petts (2003) observation that framing of issues is an important
step in EA processes. Unlike the EA of the Wuskwatim projects (section 4.4.2), however, the
Snap Lake project illustrates that it is possible to ensure the participants develop shared meaning
about the scope of the review process.
5.5
Designative aspects: Establishing truth
5.5.1
Situated: Were participants able to access assessment information in a
format that suited their needs?

5.5.1.1
Media
The discussion of press coverage of the Snap Lake project EA focuses on two key sources: the
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and News North Services Limited. These media outlets
were selected because of their territory-wide distribution, varied target audiences, and electronic
accessibility. Analysis focuses specifically on press coverage, rather than including a discussion
of paid advertising undertaken as part of assessment requirements related to notification.
121
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation provides radio and television coverage of issues in the
Northwest Territories through a regional office, located in Yellowknife. Between December 22,
2000 and June 2,2004 the corporation record indicates 34 pieces related to the Snap Lake
project30.
News North services is an independent media organization that distributes six papers across the
Northwest Territories. Between June 23,1999 and July 14,2004, this media organization
published 73 articles about the Snap Lake project.
Figure 5.2 identifies types of information discussed in media reports. When considering the
media as one entity, the top issue covered centred on economic impacts (34 references).
Although economic coverage far overweighed any other issues, coverage related to the EA
process (16 articles) and agreements associated with the review (15 articles) were other topics of
interest. These findings support the observation (section 4.5.1.1) that while media may be a
useful tool to inform the public about how to participate in a review, data related to complex
issues surrounding the EA emphasize the economic impacts, well above environmental impacts,
political issues and social impacts of the development.
30 The start date reflects the earliest coverage, and the end date reflects the latest coverage about the
project located by the researcher. As such, each media source has a different start and end date.
122
The public bearing for the Snap Lake

diamond project begin Monday, with De
Beers Canada making the case for
Process 16
building a third diamond mine on t1 ~
tundra northeast of Yellowknife....
Mackenzie Valley Environmental 1
Review Board has set aside just fiv
for public hearings... ("CBC North Snap
Lake diamond hearings open," 2003)
Recommendation No. 37 states De

Beers and GNWT shall negotiate and
sign a socio-economic agreement prior
Agreements, 15 to the issuance of a water licence," said
Semjanovs (Burnett, 2003).
Timing. 6
Political Issues, 4
Funding, 1
I Guidelines, 1
Other Projects, 10
Environmental Impacts, 8
W \
* )
:ial Impacts, 2
Decision, A
De Beers completed full acquisition of Snap
Lake with the $173-million deal with Aber
Diamond Corp. which owned 32 per cent of
Snap Lake.... Winspear estimated it would*""
cost about $260 million to build the mine
but Molyneux suggested the price tag will
expand (Ashbury, 2001)
[A] consultant concluded

that acid runoff at the
Ekati
Ekatidiamond
diamond mine is
worse
worsethan
thaniniti
initially
reportedby
byow
owner BHP.
reported
Acid forms when
wh water
comes into contact
with
con
kimberlite rock piles....
Ellis said acid runoff
harms aquatic ecosystems
(Sullivan, 2001).
Figure 5.2: Number of topics addressed by media coverage of the Snap Lake project
(N=107).
When breaking down coverage by source, it becomes clear that different media sources serve
different audiences (see Figure 5.3). News North Services covered economic aspects of the
project (28 references), followed by agreements (10 references) and other projects (9 references).
The profusion of economic references relates to the section of the paper where coverage was
focused; a majority of News North coverage was in the business section. Topics related to
ownership of the project (as the project was originally owned by a small mining company, and
purchased by De Beers after the exploration was deemed economic), and the projected cost of
putting the mine into production.
123
Figure a: Yellowknife (News North) coverage
Funding, 0
Other Projects, 9
Agreements, 10
Decision, 1
Project, 5
Political Issues, 3
Guidelines, 0
Environmental
Impacts, 3
Social Impacts, 1
Timing, 0
Agreements, 5
Process, 6
Figure b: CBC coverage
Project, 1
Funding, 1 \
Political Issues, 1
Guidelines, 1
Other Projects, 1Decision, 3

Economic Inpacts, 6
Ênvironmental
Impacts, 5
Social Inpacts, 1
Figure 5.3: Coverage of the Snap Lake project

by the Yellowknifer (n=73) and CBC (n=34).
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation had more diversified coverage, addressing economic (6
references) and process (6 references) issues, followed by discussions of the environmental
impacts (5 references) and agreements (5 references). However, as shown by the frequency
counts, there was significantly less media attention to the development compared to that of the
EAs of the Wuskwatim projects. Perhaps the lack of coverage was because this was the third
diamond project. However, as participants did not discuss media coverage, it is difficult to
speculate on the cause this lack of coverage. What is clear is that, like the Wuskwatim projects,
there was little attention to the environmental issues surrounding development. Again, this
124
illustrates that while the media are important for ensuring the broader public is aware of the EA,
for in-depth coverage of assessment aspects, alternate sources are essential.
5.5.1.2
The public registry
Unlike the situation in Manitoba, the EA was conducted under one jurisdiction. Thus, the public
registry for this EA was less complex. A public registry under the MVRMA is a complete set
of documents related to the environmental assessment. It includes documents from the
preliminary screening file, plus the Terms of Reference, the Developers Assessment Report, all
information requests, rulings, technical reviews, letters, Reasons for Decisions and any other
documentation (Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board, 2004, p.27). There
was one, central location for the Snap Lake project public registry, located in the Review Board
office in Yellowknife.
For the Snap Lake project, MVEIRB staff forwarded all material on the public registry to key
contacts in affected communities; in effect, this resulted in the creation of satellite registries
located in communities potentially affected by the development, and in organizations active in
the review process31. To ensure that the records were consistent, and up to date, periodically
MVEIRB staff sent out a revised table of contents, against which participants would compare
their satellite documentation information. Furthermore, much of the documentation, including
rulings, transcripts, presentations and an up-to-date table of contents, was posted on the public
registry website, http://www.mveirb.nt.ca/mveirbold/Registry/EADeBeers/EADeBeers.html.
Notwithstanding these efforts, assessment participants voiced one outstanding concern.
Concurrent with a public registry, the MVEIRB maintains a public record of material
surrounding the environmental assessment. The public record is a set of documentation on
which the MVEIRB bases its decision. As such, the public record (1) includes information not
found on the public registry, including that deemed to be in the proprietary interest of the
proponent, and correspondence between the MVEIRB and its staff, and (2) does not include all
material found on the public registry. This lack of harmony between the two sets of records the ones available to the public, and the ones on which the MVEIRB bases it decision - was of
31 At the start of the review, the MVEIRB indicated it was the responsibility of participants to copy
information for the public record to all interested parties. However, following the identification of a
concern regarding the lack of a coordinated, one-window approach to data management (David
Livingstone, personal communication, April 18, 2002), the Board assumed this responsibility.
125
concern to at least one organization. On several occasions, the North Slave Metis Alliance
expressed its concern that it was unable to review documentation provided to the MVEIRB by
its staff or consultants (e.g. Janet Hutchison, personal communication, September 17,2002, Kris
Johnson, personal communication, April 9, 2003, May 15, 2003, North Slave Metis Alliance,
personal communication, April 9, 2003), particularly when documentation surrounded
assessment activities that were not observed by the MVEIRB (e.g. the technical sessions, see
section 5.5.1.5) or by the public (e.g. the MVEIRB visit to the project site). Ultimately, the
MVEIRB (personal communication, July 9,2003) ruled against this request, observing that as an
administrative tribunal, it was inappropriate for it to comment on the fairness of its processes and
noting that any remedy lies through the court system.
A second comment related to the improved mechanisms to track issues. If a point of the process
is to narrow the focus of the review to key areas of interest, then there has to be an efficient way
to look up key issues, and determine the status of discussion (e.g. resolved, outstanding, on
going discussion, key parties, etc). This idea reflects the call by participants of the EA of the
Wuskwatim projects for an independent synopsis of assessment issues and participants prior to
the commencement of the hearings (section 4.5.1.4). In both cases, participants advocate a non
partisan system for recording assessment issues, with hopes of making documentation more user
friendly. Participants of the Snap Lake project, however, recommended that this system be
advanced throughout the review process. This approach is in line with the MVEIRBs intent to
narrow the number of issues of concern prior to hearings. As such, participants recommend the
MVEIRB develop a database, tied to the on-line public registry (Mackenzie Valley
Environmental Impact Review Board, 2005).
5.5.1.3
Information requests
Information Requests (IRs) were new to the assessment process in the North; like the
interrogatory process utilized by the CEC in the EA of the Wuskwatim projects, IRs involve
multiple series of written questions and answers designed to clarify and strengthen information
provided in the developer's assessment report. In this process, however, all IRs are issued by
the MVEIRB. While participants are encouraged to submit questions, these questions are vetted
through the MVEIRB or its staff.
126
The Snap Lake processes included 314 rounds of IRs32. As with the Wuskwatim projects, this
process generated a significant amount of information. In total, 433 IRs were issued by the
Board, which required responses to 944 questions. All participants interviewed indicated that
this component of the review process needs improvement. Three quotations reflect concerns
about the Snap Lake IR process:
IR rounds, although beneficial, took a long time, and you did not really get the
answer you wanted in a quick time turn around (Interview 1).
There was probably another 5000 pages of information printed, thereby negating
the whole accessibility of information to all (Interview 2).
[IRs] can be an effective tool if it is used properly, and I think it was kind of - it
became a new tool in this process, not everyone was familiar on how it would be
used, but it kind of became overwhelming, and complicated things a bit (Interview
6).
One participant observed that having the IRs issued through the MVEIRB challenged the
integrity of the requests, as some questions were incorrectly reworded or never forwarded
(Interview 7).
Many participants felt that IRs should be approached with caution, as technical issues are often
resolved more quickly and thoroughly through discussion, rather than through written responses
(see section 5.5.1.4). Although none of the participants suggested that IRs, which in the
MVEIRB process are linked with the technical review of the developers assessment report,
should be eliminated, a number of ways to strengthen this component of the review were
provided, including the need to:
create opportunities for participants to narrow the scope of the review earlier in the
process (i.e. before the technical review and IR processes). If the review is focused on
key issues of the concern to the assessment community, the number of IRs will likely
decrease (Interview 5),
limit the IR process to one, or at most 2 rounds,
32 As noted in Table 5.3, round 3 of the IRs was broken into two parts, with round 3b issues 6 weeks after
round 3a.
127
create blocks of time for the IR process, so that deadlines for submitting questions do
not occur before participants have received and have an opportunity to review responses
to previous questions,
provide resources for organizations to participate in the IR process (see section 5.2.2),
develop a template for information requests (Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact

Review Board, 2005)33, and,
reduce editing of IRs by the MVEIRB (Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact

Review Board, 2005).
5.5.1.4
Technical sessions
Technical sessions were an addendum to the standard MVEIRB process, based on the technical
meetings held for the EA of the Diavik project. These sessions, held for 10 days in December
2002, in Yellowknife, provided an opportunity for the participants to meet with the proponents
experts to resolve outstanding issues prior to the submission of technical analyses of the
developers assessment report. Time was allocated by theme, with days provided for water
quality, fish and fish habitat, wildlife, geotechnical and socio-economic issues. Minutes were
prepared by session facilitators (who were independent consultants hired by the MVEIRB),
followed several months later by session transcripts. The MVEIRB did not attend the technical
sessions. However, MVEIRB staff and technical consultants were active participants in this
process.
In the post hoc review of the EA, assessment participants identified the technical sessions as a
strength of the EA process (Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board, 2005).
Sample commendations include
I think getting everybody into the room for those 10 days was probably the most
beneficial. Just having open discussion (Interview 1).
I would like to see more of that type of process included in the Boards procedures.
And it may not mean that the full Board is there - you just need their environmental
assessment officer there to record it and put it on the file (Interview 12).
33 The MVEIRB Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines (2004), issued in March 2004, provide a
template for IRs in Appendix F.
128
That the technical session approach, where we had one-on-one dialogue, you know,
got to the bottom of the issues and concerns in a much more pro-active and
consultative way (Snap Lake Project, 2003b, v.2, p.98).
Although these sessions were very successful (see Chapter 6), participants provided a number of
suggestions on how to strengthen this part of the process:
ensure that participants have clear direction on the purpose of the technical sessions namely, to resolve outstanding issues. Session facilitators should ensure that issues are
clearly scoped (see next comment), and participants are provided with ample
opportunity to resolve issues (Interviews 1,6,7),
ask interveners to prepare draft or interim technical reports to focus the process on
outstanding issues prior to the technical sessions (Mackenzie Valley Environmental
Impact Review Board, 2005),
provide outside facilitation for break out sessions during the technical sessions
(Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board, 2005),
develop a system to track issues discussed during break out sessions (Interview 12).
Notes should become part of the public record (Mackenzie Valley Environmental
Impact Review Board, 2005), and,
provide an opportunity to submit corrections to technical session summary notes

(Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board, 2005, p. 4).
5.5.1.5
Hearings
The public review of the developers assessment report ended with 5 days of hearings, held in
Yellowknife between April and May 2003. As with the technical sessions, hearing days were
allocated by theme. Daily activities included presentations and cross-examination by all parties
interested in that topic. The MVEIRB sat primarily during business hours. However, the time
frames were extended, where necessary, to ensure that discussion related to the topic at hand was
complete. Furthermore, the Thursday session was extended into the evening, to provide Elders
with an opportunity to share their thoughts with the MVEIRB. Hearings were simultaneously
translated into Chipewyan and Dogrib.
129
Although many participants found the hearings to be a less effective mechanism for resolving
assessment issues than the technical sessions, all realized the importance of this activity
(Interviews 1,2, 5,12).
And I think often that an iterative consultation would be more productive in a lot of
ways than the formal procedural thing. But of course then you get into legal things,
and again, another big challenge is to minimize the formality and legality of the
process while still making it so you people cant lie, and that they are being held
into account for what they said, and that sort of thing (Interview 12)
Hearings provide participants with one last opportunity to discuss issues, although, as noted by
two participants, some become engaged in posturing because of the presence of the Board. But,
hearings are a significant part of process, in that oral discussion is key component of First
Nations cultures, and hearings come closest to reflecting this emphasis on dialogue:
[Y]ou have everyone sitting there and you can see everybodys faces, and you can
put a face to each company and each agency and board member, whatever. And
you can go and talk to them face to face and say This is our concern (Interview
31).
Although efforts were made to make the hearings accessible to participants (simultaneous
translation, modified hours of operation), further modifications had to be made as the hearing
progressed. For example, the arrangement had to be modified on the first day to provide Elders
with accessible seating. Furthermore, although time was allocated for Elders to testify, because
this was during an evening session, not all people who wanted to speak were able to attend the
proceedings. As noted by one participant
They often put the Elders thing in an evening session - well, I am not sure that that
is always really fair to the elders, because not many people will show up to listen to
them (Interview 12).
That the MVEIRB was flexible and made extensive efforts to accommodate the needs of its
participants is to be commended. However, one recommendation from the MVEIRBs post hoc
analysis was to meet with Elders to discuss their needs when participating in the EA process
(Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board, 2005, p.9). Suggested aspects for
discussion include seating arrangements and time of day for meetings.
130
5.5.1.6
Accuracy and completeness
As with the EA of Wuskwatim project, participants were divided when asked to assess the
accuracy and completeness of the assessment information. Four participants suggested that by
the end of the review, after the different opportunities to examine the data, no significant gaps
remained (Interviews 1,2, 5,6).
For us there were certain aspects we found initially to be incomplete, and at times it
took a long time through the process, to actually get the answers to those types of
questions to be able to draw our conclusions.. .We were able, in the end, to address
our concerns and get the information out (Interview 6).
I think by the end of it, it was pretty good. Going into it, it was so-so (Interview 5).
Others, however, believed that that some issues were inadequately covered, even by the end of
the review (Interviews 3,4, 7,13,31). As with the EA of the Wuskwatim project, the
proponents cumulative effects assessment was identified as an area of concern.
But even with Snap Lake, there could have been a lot more work done with
cumulative effects, but the company was just never going to get that done
(Interview 3).
Other identified weaknesses included the socio-economic analysis, public consultation methods,
and section 35 consultation activities (document 617). One person observed that while the
developers assessment reports are generally massive documents, the quality of the science
summarized in these documents is inadequate.
I think that the information that is provided through the Mackenzie Valley
regulatory process, as exemplified by the Snap Lake process in the NWT, is
overwhelming in quantity but weak in quality (Interview 31).
This participant suggested that the report consisted of two types of data: material written for a
specific scientist review, which was of little value to a general participant, and material so
general in nature that, as observed during the EA of the Wuskwatim projects, it could not be
sufficiently challenged.
Beyond a critique of the proponents information, however, four participants observed that the
documentation was lacking because it did not address broad policy issues fundamental to
environmental management in the North (see section 5.7.2).
131
5.5.2
Argumentation: Did the EA include evidence from different points of
view?
Unlike the EA of the Wuskwatim projects, and the two previous reviews of diamond
developments in the North, no funding was available for participants through the review board34.
Although the MVRMA can run a participant assistant program for environmental impact
assessments, no money is available for environmental assessments. As a result, despite repeated
requests for funding by various interveners, money was not available to aid public participation
in this process (Janet Hutchison personal communication, March 14, 2003, MVEIRB, personal
communication, July 21, 2001, Kevin OReilly, personal communication, July 5, 2001, July 30,
2001).
This lack of financial assistance limited the degree of public participation in the review process
(Interviews 3,4, 5,6,10).
And with De Beers Snap Lake, we couldnt afford, as a small organization, to
intervene to the same extent as we did with the other two projects. And it was
difficult to raise money, there was not participant funding (Interview 3).
To allow for better participation, you need more money and more time (Interview
10).
Without participant funding, some public organizations were unable to conduct new research to
help critique the proponents data.
Despite this lack of financial capacity by organizations, alternative perspectives were forwarded
by government organizations during the review. Governments took an active, adversarial role in
the environmental assessment; all branches of government involved in the review - the federal
and territorial governments, along with the MVEIRB - believed their function was to challenge
and test assessment evidence. Thus, a number of different government agencies contracted
independent technical experts to review the documentation.
I would want to complement government for bringing forward the number of
technical experts; particularly in Diavik, they did do that. And they did it during De
Beers Snap Lake as well. But more importantly, I think what carried the De Beers
Snap Lake process and made it more rigorous, was the fact that the Board retained a
34 However, the federal government made money available to First Nations with unsettled land claims
through the Interim Resource Management Assistance program.
132
whole raft of technical experts, both on the socio-economic side, and the
environmental side, and that was absolutely key and critical that they did that
(Interview 3).
One participant suggested that, in light of this government function, participants do not need to
hire independent expertise to review the assessment material; to do so is a duplication of efforts.
However, this function is not always fulfilled by government departments; furthermore, even if
governments act as an independent reviewer, the public may perceive that they are not fulfilling
this function. Consequently, participant funding strengthens the interactive policy-making
process by increasing the capacity of organizations to hire independent technical advice.
A second source of material from alternative perspectives was developed outside the MVEIRB
environmental assessment process. Baseline information about valued ecosystem components
was collected during a 5 year program, managed by die West Kitikmeot Slave Society (WKSS).
This society was formed to oversee a research program directed at creating baseline information
to be used in resource management in this region. During this program, 19 projects conducted
by independent researchers were funded, covering issues ranging from local traditional
knowledge research to regional wildlife studies, at a cost of approximately eleven million dollars
(David Livingstone, personal communication, August 18, 2005). Data collected through the
WKSS were included in the proponents development assessment report.
More closely tied with the Snap Lake project, however, was the completion of an impact
assessment, conducted by Lutsel Ke Dene First Nation. Lutsel Ke is the closest community to
the project; in planning its approach to the review process, the community decided it wanted a
more active role in the review than that of intervener. It approached De Beers to request funds
for a community-based EA, based on traditional knowledge and history of the area. As noted by
one member of the community,
That report was provided to De Beers, and it was included in its entirety, without
De Beers editing it, in their environmental assessment report - their actual
submission to the review Board.
Despite a lack of participant funding, assessment participants were able to access information
from a variety of perspectives.
133
5.5.3
Discussion
As with many EA processes, the environmental assessment of the Snap Lake project produced
extensive documentation. Given the past experience with intensive, diamond-based
developments in the North, the MVEIRB used several systems to ensure the public had access to
this material, such as a system for providing access to information outside the main public
registry, which included an on-line public registry. While participant funding was not available,
participants were exposed to different points of view through government funded technical
expertise, and community-based research programs subsidized by different funding agencies.
To strengthen access to information, including alternative perspectives, a number of
recommended actions were identified. Providing funding to ensure that organizations could
undertake independent research regarding key issues is an important recommendation, consistent
with research surrounding public participation (Diduck & Mitchell, 2003; Lynn & Wathem,
1991; Palerm 2000; Webler et al. 1995). This would strengthen the aforementioned efforts to
ensure alternative perspectives were explored. Additional suggestions include developing a
system to track issues throughout the review, and meeting with Elders prior to the review, to
determine their requirements.
An important component of the review process was the technical sessions. Facilitating
discussion prior to the formal hearings allowed participants to resolve assessment issues. This,
in turn, allowed the hearings to be conducted in a timely manner. Participant support for this
activity corroborates research that suggests small group meetings can be an effective component
of EA (Palerm 2000). This finding also has implications for the application of communicative
action to EA, as will be discussed in Chapter 7.
5.6
Evaluative aspects: Normative ideas
5.6.1
Critical: Did the timing of the review allow participants to consider
assessment information?
While the MVRMA directs that EA be conducted in a timely and expeditious manner (s. 115),
to date, no regulations have been enacted that establish the time to conduct an environmental
assessment (as per s. 143 (a)(i)). Beyond minor provisions relating to public notice, the
Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines (Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact
134
Review Board, 2004) established in s. 120 of the MVRMA are silent on specific timing of the
review process.
Between the referral of the project to an environmental assessment and the issuance of the
MVEIRB decision, 792 days passed. This figure includes 177 days by the proponent to submit
its developers assessment report and 162 days for the proponent to bring its report into
compliance with the guidelines. The 453 days, then, required to conduct this assessment are in
line with the timing of other review processes (see section 4.6.1).
When asked to reflect on the timing of the assessment, participants expressed a variety of
opinions. Two participants were supportive of the time taken to review the developers
assessment report. One noted that the time involved was sufficient, because no organizations
focus on the entire assessment; participants focus on key aspects of interest, and there is
sufficient time to review a number of aspects (Interview 1). Another observed that deadlines are
necessary, because people work most efficiently when under pressure. As a caveat, this person
noted there is something artificial about putting a date on when you have to have your reviewer
comments in, and there is something artificial about the number of times or the number of
rounds you can go through asking questions (Interview 7). Despite the arbitrary nature of these
dates, this participant acknowledged that deadlines can ensure that people complete their review
of assessment document. In total, two participants agreed with the timing of the MVEIRB
process.
Three participants were less supportive of the time taken to review the project, suggesting that
the timelines were too compressed (Interviews 6,10,31).
For a project this big you need about a year to explain the project, [hear input from
our organizational members], make presentations, and then review them with the
participants before you present them (Interview 10).
And if you look at the Snap Lake report, specifically, their report was three binders,
and it is very likely that a good chunk of the people who participated in the
environmental assessment process did not read those things in their entirety. First
of all, because people just dont have the time to do it (Interview 31).
These participants were less accepting of the strategy to focus on key topics, rather than be
familiar with the report. They were also concerned about interacting with members of their
135
organizations to develop shared perspectives related to the information - a strategy that requires
time and resources to discuss in advance of assessment activities.
Finally, one participant was also concerned about timing, suggesting that the review took too
much time.
So thats the frustration from the Industrys side - how long will this take and how
much will this cost? It is pretty hard to feel sorry for De Beers, or Diavik or Ekati
[large, multinational corporations with exceptional profitable ore bodies], but the
next guy that wants to permit a little gold mine - if he is faced with a five year
process to get it licensed, we may just be chasing our economic future outside the
Territory (Interview 12).
This concern is addressed in preliminary research surrounding the EA process as it relates to
mineral development in Canada and Australia. In a survey of Toronto-based mining companies,
Annadale (2000) records that the high profile nature of the BHP EA process resulted in what
some mineral executives grudgingly classify as high standards for environmental regulation.
Further discussion, however, notes that while environmental regulation is important for project
investment35, most Canadian mining executives suggest that these processes are encouraging for
future project development (Annadale & Taplin, 2003).
Additional comments related to timing included observations th at:
as an EA juggles multiple activities, and multiple interests, sometimes too much time is
allocated to something that is of interest to only one or two people (Interview 2),
timing and organizational capacity (as discussed in Chapter 6) are linked, because with
enough money, time is not an issue (Interview 5),
the timeline could be streamlined if the IR process were reformed (see section 5.5.1.3),
as discussed in 5.4.2, work plans and timelines should be allocated in terms of blocks of
time, rather than specific dates for review so that neither side is penalized for anothers
truancies,
35 In discussing his findings, Annadale (2000) notes that the survey design inquired only about
importance; as such, it is impossible to determine from this dataset if environmental regulation attracts
or deters from mineral investment.
136
efforts should be taken to mitigate time crunches when new information is provided
periodically throughout the review, and
as with most long-term endeavours, time towards the end of the process invariably
become compressed.
The public registry documents active communication between the MVEIRB and assessment
participants regarding timelines. In several instances, the Board sought input from all
participants regarding changes to the work plan that would include an extension of timelines
(e.g. documents 80,309-12,14,22). Although the final decisions surrounding timing were
made by the MVEIRB, participants were actively engaged in discussion surrounding assessment
timing.
As discussed in section 2.5.1.3, a second limiting factor of an EA process is the scope of the
review, including addressing cumulative effects, evaluating the need for and alternatives to
project development, and identifying monitoring programs
The Snap Lake EA had considerably more emphasis on the cumulative effects assessment than
the Wuskwatim projects (section 4.6.1). The terms of reference specified that the developers
report include an evaluation of the cumulative effects likely to result from the proposed
development in combination with other development (Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact
Review Board, 2001, p. 17). The final guidelines specified that the CEA should consider the
biophysical, social, economic, and cultural environments, heritage resources and visual and
aesthetic resource (also see section 5.4.2). Despite this discussion, participants expressed
concerns about the CEA. Dialogue and debate surrounded the methods used by the proponent
for socio-economic and biological analysis (see also general comments section 5.5.1.6 and
5.7.2).
The Government of the Northwest Territories shares the concern that has already
been expressed, particularly today, about concerns over the effects... on caribou
from potentially adding another mine, especially on the post-calving, and summer
ranges of the Bathurst Caribou herd, but also on the winter range of the Ahiak herd
(Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board, 2003b, v. 4, p. 184).
We believe that it should be clear to the Board that there is significant concern
around the issue of cumulative effects in the Slave Geological Province, and we
point out that this has been ongoing issue since the BHP Environmental Assessment
Panel. We see that there's a critical need for thresholds or limits of acceptable
137
change to be developed collectively by all the stakeholders, to ensure that there are
no irreversible and undesirable adverse cumulative effects from a development
boom that's currently under way in the Slave Geological Province (Mackenzie
Valley Environmental Impact Review Board, 2003b, v. 5, pp. 279-280).
And then on the environmental side, look at what Anne Gunn said about their
methodology for doing cumulative effects assessment from a biological perspective.
Really quite deficient. But we just carried on our merry way (Interview 3)36
Building on this dialogue, the decision of the MVEIRB (2003b) included a number of
recommendations related to cumulative effects, such as the need to continue work on the
Cumulative Effects Assessment and Management Framework (recommendations 32,26), and
develop thresholds for habitat loss (recommendation 26), among others.
Needs for and alternatives to the project received significantly less attention than the
Wuskwatim projects (section 4.6.1). Although under s. 117(2) of the MVRMA, the MVEIRB
may ask a proponent to consider the need for the development, this was not included as part of
the final terms of reference. With respect to alternatives, the developers report was to consider
the alternatives to the development as per section 2.5.1 (Mackenzie Valley Environmental
Impact Review Board, 2003a, p. 10). Under this heading, however, the text indicates that the
proponent should
Include a description of the main development/production/technical alternatives, in
particular, those associated with the [specific project components].
As such, the analysis focused on alternative means of constructing the project, rather than
alternatives to the project. While this is a superficial review of how the needs for and
alternatives to the project were considered, the EA certainly falls far short of the
recommendations of Gibson (2000) and Boyd (2003) about the importance of this component of
the analysis in an effective assessment process.
As identified in section 4.6.1, diamond development in the Northwest Territories includes
independent institutions to review the findings of impact monitoring programs. While the
strengths and weaknesses of this system of governance are discussed elsewhere (see for example
36 Dr. Gunn observed We certainly agree with De Beers that caribou ecology is complex. And
assessing what causes changes is not particularly easy, but we do suggest that De Beers could have
undertaken more analysis. In particular, we feei that it has missed opportunities, that De Beers did not
follow the approaches developed for die Porcupine Caribou Herd, and applied during the assessment
for Diavik (Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board, 2003b, v. 4, p. 190).
138
Fitzpatrick, submitted; OReilly 1998), it is important to note that the MVEIRB report and
reasons for decision (2003) included a number of suggestions and recommendations about
specific project monitoring. Furthermore, the report recommended that both levels of
government implement regional, multi-party monitoring systems (recommendations 26,31 and
37), linked with the Cumulative Effects Assessment and Management Framework, identified
above.
The scope of the EA of the Snap Lake project is illustrative of systemic weaknesses in existing
EA processes. Although the assessment included extensive consideration of cumulative impacts
of development, uncertainties surrounded the methodology used to predict impacts. In
conjunction with an inadequate approach to the needs for and alternatives to analysis, this
review illustrates how project specific EA are unable to address all environmental impacts.
Notwithstanding this censure, the NWT is in a unique position in Canada, having started
development of a regional based system for addressing cumulative impacts of development. As
such, it was possible for the MVEIRB to recommend firstly, that efforts continue with respect to
a regional approach to resources management, and secondly, that monitoring programs feed into
this regional system of governance. The next step, which was notably absent from this review
(as will be discussed in section 5.7.2), would be to use a regional approach to address
fundamental questions about the nature of development in the north. A regional planning
exercise would address strategic issues in resource management, such as, Is future diamond
development desirable?
5.6.2
Equity: Do participants believe that assessment activities were
equitable?
As with the EA of the Wuskwatim projects, participants expressed a variety of opinions on
whether or not the proceedings were equitable. Five participants observed that assessment
activities were open to all, and conducted in a fair manner (Interviews 1,3,4, 7,13).
Snap Lake, in my mind, was certainly an open discussion approach (Interview 13).
[The chair of the review] gave everybody the opportunity to ask the questions that
they wanted, and needed to. Sometimes he might ask you to justify its relevance to
the proceedings, but he never cut anybody off, and he made sure that everybody had
an opportunity to ask their questions (Interview 3).
139
This group of respondents was divided, however, on whether or not the process was equitable.
Three observed that the government, and the proponent, have easier access to the process. Not
only do these groups have access to capital to fund participation, employees of these
organizations are paid to attend the proceedings (1, 3,4). This is not the case with most non
governmental organizations, which rarely have human resources dedicated to a specific EA,
particularly when participant assistance is not provided.
No [I do not think all interested parties had an equal opportunity to participate], I
think it was a bit easier for government, because that is what they are here to do.
But for the public and the First Nations groups, they had a difficult time with
capacity, keeping up to speed on the information, and the information requests back
and forth (Interview 1).
Three additional participants concurred with this observation, and in light of this perceived
inequity, did not view the proceedings as equitable (Interviews 2, 5,6).
Another participant suggested that the structure of the proceedings naturally hinders
participation; if the public is not well versed in Western democratic institutions, participation is
limited.
The opportunity is provided to participate, through intervener status, and dollars are
provided but that participation is conditional on people being able to act like
Western bureaucrats, and that is the real problem. All this money is dumped in and
the opportunities are provided, but people cannot use the money in the way - nor do
they want to use the money in the way -that it is expected to be used (Interview 31).
This observation is hauntingly similar to the critique of Habermas theory of communicative
action that notes that communicative competence is a precondition for participation (section 2.1).
If people are not skilled in Western-based political and legal institutions, can these frameworks
of governance ever be used successfully to negotiate the lifeworld? Translated to this case
study, this question asks if systems for managing environmental resources do not reflect the
needs and decision-making processes of the constituents of the Territory, can they ever truly be
equitable?
Returning to the question of fairness as it relates to this specific EA, it is important to note that
there are a number of objections on public record about in camera meetings between the
proponent and other parties. An example of this objection follows:
140
if the site visit proceeded on the basis you have proposed, it will unfairly prejudice
the interests of the NSMA and other Aboriginal groups,. .The NSMA is very
concerned that all parties to the EA are not invited to attend the site (North Slave
Metis Alliance, personal communication, April 9, 2003).
Although most believed the process was open to all, at least one organization expressed repeated
concerns about access to specific activities within the assessment.
5.6.3
Discussion
As noted in Chapter 2, evaluative arguments are considered with respect to the authenticity of
the appeal. The discussion of two evaluative components of the EA of the Snap Lake project,
namely the timing and scope of the review, and the extent that participation was equitable,
indicates that participants had a variety of perspectives about these issues. The purpose of this
discussion is not to adjudicate, but rather to illustrate that participants have different
perspectives, based on different notions of what an assessment should and could be. This
discussion can, in turn, contribute to future negotiations between assessment participants to
strengthen the review process.
Findings related to the timing of the review reflect different viewpoints across assessment
literature. A common concern related to public involvement echoed by some assessment
participants was that the timelines were compressed (Sinclair & Diduck, in press). A smaller
group of participants felt timing was adequate given the assessment process. One person echoed
concern of the mining industry, as captured by Annadale (2000), that the timing and focus of the
assessment may negatively impact future mineral development.
With respect to scope, the environmental assessment of the Snap Lake project reflects literature
that alleges EA processes remain deficient in terms of adequately addressing cumulative
impacts, needs for and alternatives to, and monitoring of the development. Barring a
comprehensive regional framework to develop a resource management plan, and undertake
regional monitoring, project specific EAs cannot adequate address cumulative impacts and
monitoring. While preliminary efforts in the NWT to create a regional system are significant,
more consideration should be taken with respect to strategic planning.
While participants were exposed to alternative perspectives through government and a
MVEIRB-supported external consultant, a lack of participant funding was identified as a barrier
141
to this component of the review. This result corroborates research that suggests money is
necessary to balance access to the process (see for example Sinclair and Diduck, in press).
5.7
Advocative aspects: Subjective components
5.7.1
Individual outcomes: What instrumental and communicative learning
outcomes are attributed to the EA?

All participants identified various instrumental and communicative learning outcomes associated
with participation in the EA. Table 5.4 highlights these instrumental and communicative
learning outcomes, organized by modified categories used by Diduck and Mitchell (2003).
As noted in Chapter 4, instrumental learning involves the acquisition of new skills or
information, along with data grounded in a technical understanding of events. Six participants
attributed technical learning to participation in the diamond-based development. Examples of
technical learning outcomes, highlighted in Table 5.4, include an understanding of specific
project components, and their impacts on the environment, an improved appreciation for
Northern communities, and a greater confidence in dealing with multinational corporations.
However, unlike the technical outcomes described in Chapter 4, these outcomes were considered
to be iterative. Rather than linking a specific technical understanding with the Snap Lake
project, participants linked technical outcomes with participation in diamond EAs.
So there has been an educational process on people knowing (1) what the impacts
of diamond mines are, and (2) how these are mitigated, (3) and there has been an
educational process on how land and water issues are regulated in the NWT
(Interview 31).
And I think definitely each time we do it, we learn a little bit more.... What I find in
my mind is all the processes kind of meld into one, one into the other. Its kind of
an evolution, its along a continuum of experience, and trying to do it better, and
being more successful and succinct in what you ask, and being a little more specific
in regulatory requirements (Interview 7).
142
Table 5.4: Instrumental and communicative learning outcomes associated with the EA
of the Snap Lake project. Where appropriate, quotations representing participants
learning outcomes are included. In some instances, however, direct quotations were
not available.
Scientific and
technical advice
Legal,
administrative and
political procedures
Biophysical social
and economic
knowledge
INSTRUMENTAL LEARNING
Project components (Interview 5,31) - So people are now familiar with
acid rock drainage, they are familiar with dust deposition, they are familiar
with waste rock piles(Interview 31).
Ways of knowing (Interview 13, 31) - Because I do believe that one of
the biggest benefits of living up here is listening to the Elders, because one
thing I learned.. .is that the Elders have their own message (Interview
13).
EA process (Interviews 1,3,4, 5,6, 7,31) - We learned that the
information requests rounds, although beneficial, took a long time, and
you didnt really get the answer you wanted in a quick time turn around
(Interview 1).
Environment - The question is are we doing things better, and there are
a number of fronts, theres the technical front, because when years ago
somebody said they wanted to have a diamond mine here, we didnt have
a clue what the potential issues with diamond mining were (Interview 7).
Dynamics of northern development (Interview 2, 5) - We learned a lot
about the communities, and the communities learned a lot about the
company and the project (Interview 2).
Dealing with development companies - Our organization is now
saying we dont want to be another intervener at the end of the pipe, we
want to involved from the beginning on monitoring and baseline data
collection and not on your terms - but on [our] terms. So people have
really learned that this is possible. [We] have the capacity to do that
(Interview 31).
143
Insight into ones

own interest
Insight into the

interest of others
Communication
strategies and
methods
1Social mobilization
COMMUNICATIVE LEARNING
Organizational skills (Interview 1,5,6, 7)
How to use the process to further organizational objectives
(Interviews 3,4, 8,13)
Strengthening the process (Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact
Review Board (2005)).
Different approaches for engaging communities (Mackenzie Valley
Environmental Impact Review Board (2005))
Interaction among different organizations (Interviews 12, 13)- Of
course part of participating in these type of things is you spend most of
the time listening rather than speaking, and thats an opportunity to gauge
other peoples perspectives on these things (Interview 12).
How to communicate more effectively (Interviews 2, 3,4, 7,12,13) As an organization it probably helps the next time it comes around you
can get the visual things out there, and it will have a big impact, and you
dont have to spend a lot of time writing out huge reports that people
arent going to read, right? Get the things out there that will have an
impact, and arent necessarily easy to do, but in the long term have a
much better impact (Interview 4)
Success of dialogue as a method for resolving outstanding issues
(Interviews 1, 6, 7)
Deficiencies in policy regime (Interviews 3,4, 8,13)
Deficiencies in assessment methodology (Interview 31)______________
One example given by a participant involved water treatment. The BHP facility does not have a
water treatment plant; participants pushed to have this component added to the Diavik facility.
According to Interview 7, water treatment facilities are expected for the Snap Lake project.
Technical knowledge and expectations evolve as participants work through each subsequent
project. This affects participants understanding of learning outcomes. Although participants
acknowledged technical learning was associated with participation in EA, they were challenged
to identify specific learning outcomes with the Snap Lake project. Learning was described as
being iterative, with each subsequent assessment building on the knowledge base created by the
previous activity.
Beyond technical learning outcomes, instrumental learning also includes outcomes involving
legal, administrative, and political procedures. Seven participants identified procedural learning
outcomes associated with participation in this assessment. Procedural learning outcomes
focused on a refined understanding of how to undertake EA, specific to the new MVRMA
process. Procedural learning outcomes, once again, share themes discussed in previous sections,
144
including issues surrounding the IR process (see section 5.5.1.3). Participants identified a range
of strategies for optimizing this process, including circumventing the MVEIRB process and
communicating directly with the company to resolve issues. A second procedural theme related
to assessment timing (see section 5.6.1).
As these lessons were largely focused on new aspects of the review process, this discussion of
procedural outcomes reinforces the notion that procedural knowledge can contribute to future
activities. Because of previous experience with EA, a small percentage of participants identified
learning outcomes related to process, and those who did focused their comments on components
specific to the MVEIRB review.
As illustrated in Table 5.4, individuals experienced a range of communicative learning outcomes
associated with participation in this EA. As these learning outcomes contribute to the
development of the organization or the development of the larger system of which the
organization is a part, they will be discussed in detail in sections 5.7.2 and 6.2.4.
5.7.2 Policy-oriented learning: Did the EA contribute to policy-oriented

learning?
Policy-oriented learning associated with participation in the Snap Lake project related to
communicative outcomes by groups as other peoples interests, and social mobilization.
Three areas of learning were identified, related to social networks, policy change and procedural
deficiencies.
With respect to social networks, two participants observed that the purpose of EA is to share
ideas and perspectives surrounding proposed development. The value of the process is in the
discussion shared between interested members of the community. While this approach to social
networks is not as sophisticated as that identified by participants of the Wuskwatim project, it
speaks to the motivation behind engagement in the process. Furthermore, this observation
illustrates that EA can contribute to the development of advocacy coalitions; at a minimum, it
brings together different policy actors interested in a specific policy.
Four participants suggested that the environmental assessment identified gaps in the system of
environmental management in the North. One suggested that this process was useful for
illustrating where current regulatory systems are inadequate to address broader environmental
145
issues, such as regional cumulative effects, or fundamental questions about the nature of society
in the North, questions such as
Is it appropriate to pursue economic development directed at putting a diamond on

somebodys finger? (Interview 31) and,
Is the current pattern of diamond development sustainable? (Interviews 3,4)
Beyond the observation that the policy systems do not adequately address strategic issues in
resource management, one participant noted that the assessment process is not conducive to
public participation, particularly in a cross-cultural environment. As discussed in section 5.6.2,
EA is based on a Western conception of governance. Although the MVRMA was created to
address land and resource management issues specific to locales with Aboriginal and First
Nations interests, it continues to rely on a Western scientific approach and structured process.
By doing so, it places those people who prefer other ways of knowing at a disadvantage. And
although steps have been made to improve cross cultural relations, in particular with respect to
how traditional knowledge is considered in the review (see sections 5.4.2 and 5.5.2), more
efforts are needed.
I have found in my experience that industry - all they want to do is get their minds
made and the job done. And they are quite happy to accommodate people, even if
they dont think that it necessarily makes sense - they just want to get things done.
Government is much more sticky there. And so in my experience with all three
diamond mines - the proponents, when you bring them into the process and work
with them, relatively closely, they are a little more amenable to working with
traditional knowledge, whereas the government has a much more ingrained
bureaucracy, so you are really pushing against a much thicker, harder wall in that
respect (Interview 31).
5.7.3
Discussion
Participants identified a variety of learning outcomes associated with the EA of the Snap Lake
project. Technical knowledge, although not always specific to this assessment, included data
about the projects and their impacts. Policy-oriented learning included two categories of
communicative learning: insight into the interest of others, and social mobilization. Although
insufficient time has passed to explore how these ideas contribute to policy change, the
outcomes are important because not only do they relate an experience to learning, but they also
contribute to an agenda for change that extends beyond the individual and the organization to the
advocacy coalition and policy level.
146
Issues surrounding cross cultural assessment illustrate concerns associated with communicative
action. As noted in section 2.1, communicative competence relates to the ability of participants
to use language to foster understanding. In putting a premium on language, Habermas is
challenged for not allowing for multicultural environments, in that those not well versed in the
dominant language are disadvantaged. Results from the EA of the Snap Lake project reinforce
this observation, noting beyond language skills, participants must be well versed in Western
democratic governance institutions to effectively engage in the process. By focusing on
dialogue and interaction, communicative action necessarily disadvantages those who are not able
to master these activities in the forms provided by governing groups.
5.8
Conclusion
This chapter began by introducing the second case study, the EA of the Snap Lake project
(section 5.1). As discussed in section 5.2, this assessment marked the third time a diamond
development was reviewed, but the first time this review was conducted by the MVEIRB. A
discussion of the historic assessment process served as the foundation for exploring learning
opportunities related to EA.
As noted in section 5.4, the public had numerous opportunities to become engaged in the review.
One of the strengths of this process related to the development of the guidelines. Although
scoping sessions were not held to solicit public input, the MVEIRB made numerous
modifications to the guidelines to reflect public concern. While steps were made to ensure that
participants had access to information and alternative points of view, including the use of
external expertise by government reviewers, these efforts could be strengthened through a
variety of mechanisms, including the provision of participant funding, and development of an
issues-tracking system. Participants also provided recommendations on how to improve the
timing of the review process.
Participants identified multiple methods used to ensure documentation was more situated
(section 5.5). The MVEIRB implemented a number of systems, including providing an on-line
public registry, to ensure the material met the needs of participants. The addition of technical
sessions, designed to provide participants with an opportunity to resolve issues prior to the
hearings, supports research that suggests dialogue is important for effective public involvement
(Palerm, 2000). As with the Wuskwatim projects (section 4.5.1.3), IRs became an unwieldy part
147
of the process. Participants identified a number of opportunities to improve this component of

the review. Active involvement by government and independent experts during the technical
review and hearings contributed to alternative perspectives. However the allocation of
participant funding would strengthen the review.
In terms of opportunities to critically evaluate the process, data related to the timing and scope of
the review (section 5.6). Participants were divided regarding the assessment timelines. While
some suggested the timing was appropriate, others suggested that the timelines were
compressed. One person suggested that the timeline were too long. Consideration of the scope
of the assessment illustrates systemic concerns with project-specific EAs, including the lack of
comprehensive regional planning.
With respect to equal participation, results of the Snap Lake project also corroborate the
importance of ensuring the public is aware of the project and has an opportunity to intervene in
the process. Participants were also divided on the question of whether the process was equitable.
Of paramount importance to this discussion, again, is access to financial resources. Funding was
not provided for the Snap Lake project, therefore non-state public actors were disadvantaged as
compared with state and non-state productive actors. While the latter groups could access funds
to provide for dedicated paid participation, the non-state public actors were unable to do so. As
such, six participants observed that the hearing could not be considered equitable.
A variety of learning outcomes was associated with the EA of the Snap Lake project (section
5.7). Instrumental learning included both technical and procedural knowledge; outcomes
illustrated that this type of learning is iterative as participants could not always determine which
outcomes were specific to this review. Policy-oriented learning, one subset of communicative
learning, included discussion of social networks, policy change and procedural deficiencies. The
discussion of learning outcomes continues in Chapter 6, when I consider organizational learning
associated with participants in EA and a comparative analysis of the two case studies.
148
Chapter
ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING
To this point, the discussion of learning has focused on the learning environment and the
individuals engaged in the process. While necessary, these elements are insufficient for
organizational learning. For an organization to learn it must include purposeful subsystems that
facilitate transference of knowledge, including information distribution, interpretation and
organizational memory (Huber 1996). In this chapter, I consider the structures that channel
individual learning outcomes into organizational learning. Included in this section is
consideration of organizational learning outcomes associated with participation in EA.
Having documented the dynamics of individual organizational learning, I explore the second
research objective, the relationship between EA and learning, as viewed by research participants.
This facilitated an exploration of the extent to which EA can serve as a vehicle for deliberative
democracy. Results feed into a preliminary analysis of the contribution of learning to
sustainable development through participation in EA, addressing the third research objective. A
comparative analysis of the findings of the two case studies is intended to strengthen the
procedural components of assessment associated with learning.
6.1
Organizations
Although the previous discussion of learning was organized by case study, it is appropriate now
to change the unit of analysis. Organizational learning is facilitated by a number of structures,
including culture, governance structures and environment (Bapuji & Crossan, 2004). However,
my broad definition of organization, which includes purposeful subsystems with interest in
itself, the system of which it is a part, and the people who make up the institution, results in a
long list of institutions that can be deemed organizations. To facilitate this discussion, then, it
would be appropriate to group similar organizations. This categorization is informed by
literature focused on policy actors.
A policy network includes state and non-state actors engaged in the formation of policy (Hessing
& Howlett, 1997). State actors are at the centre of policy networks in that they form the
institutions that create and direct policy. The state is further subdivided into three branches: the
149
executive (elected officials directly involved in development of legislation and policy), the
bureaucracy (appointed officials who administer public policy), and the judiciary (individuals
who arbitrate and adjudicate issues defined by law).
EA is a bureaucratic process designed to inform executive decision making. In that context, this
research is concerned with the bureaucracy - those who implement policy. My discussion
focuses on two components of the bureaucracy, government departments and administrative
tribunals. The latter category is distinct from government departments in that administrative
tribunals are independent of the government, but designed to inform (but not necessarily direct)
government policy making (Duhaime, 2004).
Non-state actors are situated outside formal political institutions, and do not have direct control
over policy development or implementation. This category of policy actor can be further
subdivided into public actors, who represent an array of interests outside economic interests,
First Nations, and corporate actors, who pursue economic interests (Hessing & Howlett,
1997f 7. Table 6.1 summarizes key elements that distinguish the five types of policy actors
considered in this research.
As noted in Section 3.3, the two case studies are situated in relatively small policy communities.
To further classify participant responses by actor could compromise the confidentially of the
participants. Therefore, findings related to organizational learning are developed by type of
organization, without differentiation by geographic locale.
Much of the organizational learning literature draws from, and emphasizes non-state, corporate
actors as the unit of analysis (Argyris, 1999; Bapuji & Crossan, 2004; Senge, 1990; Templeton,
Lewis, & Snyder, 2002). Research, for example, has documented organizational learning in
companies such as Shell, Intel and Alpha Medica. Despite this usual focus on business
organizations, as noted in Chapter 3, only one participant in this research represented non-state
corporate actors. While Manitoba Hydro was unable to participate due to the timing of the
study, De Beers Canada, Inc, was involved in the research, and shared interesting thoughts on
organizational learning. Elements of organizational learning, then, will include reference to non-
37 Categories identified by Hessing and Howlett have been modified to reflect the nuances of these case
studies.
150
state, corporate actors, drawn primarily from the literature, and completed by data from this
research.
Furthermore, although representatives of First Nations contributed to this study, this research
was not designed to examine the dynamics of organizational learning in a First Nations
environment. As a function of being conducted in a northern Canada, both case studies identify
issues surrounding cross cultural EA. However there were insufficient data and inappropriate
research focus to comment on nuances of learning specific to Aboriginal worldviews (see for
example Simpson 2000a; 2000b; 1999; McGregor,1999), which would necessarily impact
community information structures and organizational learning outcomes. As such, and where
appropriate, observations from these parties are considered in tandem with public actors.
As with individual learning and the learning environment, organizational learning outcomes are
affected by systems and dynamics surrounding the learning event (see section 2.5). The
organizational learning literature identified three systems important to organizational learning
(Huber 1996): information distribution, information interpretation, and organizational memory.
Prior to reviewing the nature of these systems in participant organizations, it is useful to revisit
how organizations leam.
Argryis (1993,1999) and Argyris and Schon (1978,1996), suggests that organizational learning
might be classified in three ways, single- double- and triple-loop learning. Single-loop
learning involves applying knowledge to improve organizational performance. Double-loop
learning involves restructuring the organizations approach to achieving its objectives. Triple
loop learning is knowledge directed at improving an organizations capacity to undertake singleand double- loop learning. The literature stresses that the categories of learning are not
hierarchical; specifically, single-loop learning is not inferior to double-loop learning (EasterbySmith & Araujo, 1999). This observation is important when considering the categories of
organizational learning outcomes associated with participation in EA; no one category of
learning is better than another.
151
Table 6.1: Elements that distinguish policy actors (derived in part from (Hessing &
Howlett, 1997)
NON-STATE ACTORS
STATE ACTORS
Government
Administrative
Tribunals
Public Actors
First Nations
Corporate
Actors
Mandate
Administer
policy
Inform policy
Represent
public interest
Represent the
interests of First
Nations
Represent
corporate
interest
Resources
Unmatched
access to
resources
Determined by
government
Unsecured
(based on a
variety of fund
raising
mechanisms)
Unsecured
(based on a
variety of fund
raising
mechanisms)
Capitalist based)
Membership
Employees
Independent
appointments
Volunteers and
employees
Community
members and
employees
Employees
Examples
from
research
Canadian
Environmental
Assessment
Agency
Clean
Environment
Commission
Boreal Forest
Network
Centre for
Indigenous
Environmental
Research
De Beers
Canada Inc
Department of
Conservation
(Manitoba)
Department of
Fisheries and
Oceans
Mackenzie
Valley
Environmental
Impact Review
Board
Canadian
Arctic
Resources
Committee
Lutsel Ke Dene
First Nation
Consumers
Association of
Canada,
Manitoba
Indian and
Northern Affairs
Canada
Manitoba
Society of
Seniors
Resources,
Wildlife and
Economic
Development
(Northwest
Territories)
Manitoba
Wildlands
NWT and NU
Chamber of
Mines
Public Interest
Law Centre
Resource
Conservation
Time to
Respect Earths
Ecosystems
152
As discussed in Chapter 2, organizations consist of individuals. As these individuals acquire

knowledge potentially useful to an organization, it learns. As such, organizational learning first
relies on the acquisition of knowledge by individual members. As this knowledge is transferred
into the organization (through a variety of structures, discussed below), to improve the
organizations performance, organizational learning is said to occur. Therefore, if one person in
an organization learns, learning has occurred within the organization. This does not mean,
however, that organizational learning has occurred. This is a subtle but important distinction.
6.1.1
Information distribution
Before the knowledge and learning of individuals within an organization becomes part of the
organization, they must be shared. As noted in Chapter 2, discussion surrounding information
distribution includes consideration of knowledge logistics (the availability of, and requirement
for information), and knowledge dissemination (tools for sharing information with an
organization) (Huber, 1996).
As illustrated in Table 6.2, actors involved in both case studies have a variety of methods for
sharing information. Rather than providing an exhaustive list, research participants identified,
through the course of the interviews, methods through which they developed assessment
interventions. Lists have been enhanced with methods documented on the public registry, or
observed by the researcher.
Government departments identified an understanding of the expertise of their staff, and external
resources needed to strengthen their participation in the EA (Interview AF, AG38). In
developing their approaches to the review, then, they were able to identify where internal
resources were adequate, and where external consultants were required to review project
components. Familiarity with internal government expertise is essential when coordinating a
review of the project. Two participants noted that this was important for coordinating their
organizations intervention. According to the literature (Huber, 1996), understanding the
strengths of an organizations personnel is important to facilitating learning.
38 To ensure confidentiality, different code names are assigned to participants for Chapter 6.
153
Table 6.2: Methods for sharing information identified by research participants.
Government
Administrative Tribunal
Public Actors
Other methods for sharing

information (Romme & Dillen,
1997)
INFORMATION DISTRI BUTION

Dissemination
Logistics
Knowledge of personnel Regular meetings with active
Knowledge of external
participants
Written communication
resources
Electronic communication
Knowledge of
organizational strengths Development of standard
Team leadership
presentations
Infrequent meetings with
non-active participants
Meetings
Special workshops regarding
resources
Appointment of
lessons learned
temporary members
Knowledge of personnel Regular meetings with
organizational members
resources
Team leadership
Conversations
Purposeful mix of
expertise on Board
Formal debriefing sessions on
key topics
Presentations to other units
Instruction and training
programs
Although not directly linked to the discussion of intra-organizational logistics, the Snap Lake
public registry includes a number of submissions regarding the expertise of government
reviewers. The MVEIRB requested that government reviewers submit curriculum vitae to the
public registry. A number of objections regarding this request were noted on the public record,
including this comment by DFO:
DFOs presentation at the public hearing will not represent the views of one
individual, but rather will be a consolidation of departmental expertise. DFOs
views as an expert department will be provided by those appointed representatives
from the Habitat Management Group. Therefore DFO will be presenting at the
Public Hearing, but will not be providing CVs for DFO staff involved in these
proceedings (J. Dahl, personal communication, April 23, 2003).
While the MVEIRB chose not to pursue this issue for the Snap Lake review, the Chair noted that
in future proceedings, the filing of this information will be mandatory and that we will not hear
154
from witnesses who do not comply with the Board's instructions (Snap Lake Project, 2003,
p.24).
This issue raises the question: who should be familiar with the specific expertise of the
government bureaucracy? While knowledge of personnel is important for any organization to
function, state actors are in a unique position with respect to sharing these data with a broader
audience. While corporate actors may guard internal logistics to protect their organizations
competitive advantage, state actors ultimately serve the public good. In this way, the public has
some right to have confidence in the technical review of the developers assessment report, in
part through scrutiny of CVs. However, Ms Dahl from DFO makes a compelling argument that
expertise is a function of the collective members of the organization. Additional research on this
topic, grounded in both political science and management literature, would be informative.
Other activities undertaken by government departments related to logistics include:
the use of outside expertise to review material. One department used consultants to
undertake a technical review of the project assessment; a second noted that it used its
informal network of colleagues to review departmental submissions (Interviews AF,
BF),
a strategic intervention. After canvassing the expertise of other assessment participants,

one department noted that it focused efforts on areas either not addressed by
participants, or on aspects for which interventions needed to be reinforced by third
parties (Interview BF), and,
the use of team leaders to facilitate participation (Interviews AF, AH, AI, AK). By
establishing one key contact, some departments established clear points for inter and
intra communication regarding technical expertise.
With respect to dissemination of knowledge, material was shared within government

departments through various means. Methods noted by participants include regular meetings
with personnel active in the review, and written communication. Although e-mail was not
specifically identified as a form of dissemination of information, documentation on both public
registries indicates this tool was employed by all government departments in the case studies.
155
Additional mechanisms for dissemination of knowledge include:
infrequent meetings with personnel not as active in the EA (Interview AI); and
the development of strategic tools during participation. For example, one department
developed standard presentation sets regarding key assessment topics (Interview BF). In
completing this exercise, the department worked to ensure that consistent messages were
shared both through the specific EA, and future EA activities.
Administrative tribunals used fewer logistical initiatives. In terms of internal resources, tribunal
members are appointed to both the CEC and the MVEIRB. In the former case, the provincial
government, through an Order in Council, nominates members of the CEC. Like the CEC, the
MVEIRB members are appointed; however, this appointment process includes nominations from
the First Nations and the territorial government (s. 112). Single-party political appointments
give the perception of bias (in that appointments may be made based on support to a specific
political party rather than on expertise), and may lead participants to conclude that tribunal
members have insufficient expertise to review material (Interviews AK, AP). Previous research
recommending that appointments to the CEC be conducted through an all party process was
echoed by three research participants (Sinclair, Diduck, & Fitzpatrick, 2002).
In an effort to strengthen technical expertise, both tribunals contracted outside technical
expertise to aid in the review of project documents, and to cross-examine the proponents during
the hearings. For the CEC, this included both outside consultants to review the application, and
the temporary appointment of two panelists following the harmonization with the PUB review
(discussed in section 4.3).
Information dissemination techniques emphasized face-to-face activities. This emphasis on
face-to-face contact reflects public involvement literature that suggests face-to-face exchanges
are important for sharing information, and developing higher order consultation (see for example
Sinclair & Diduck, 1995; Webler, Kastenholz, & Renn, 1995). During the hearing, panelists met
on an informal basis (unscheduled, without recording minutes) to discuss daily activities
(Interviews BA, BC). Outside the specific assessment, both tribunals met on a regular basis to
discuss activities; according to participants, these meetings allowed for information sharing
between members. A third face-to-face activity conducted (or planned) by each organization
was a workshop focused specifically on lessons learned by panel members active in the review
156
(Interviews BA, BD). In an effort to build their knowledge, both tribunals expressed interest in
having members involved in specific EAs - including the two case studies - share their learning
outcomes with the larger body. As noted by one participant, we do try to benefit from other
peoples experiences (Interview BA).
Although not mentioned in the interviews, tribunal members also communicate through written
material, as evidenced through the discussion about whether intra-organizational communication
would be on the public registry (section 5.5.1.2).
Public actors are engaged in similar activities related to organizational logistics. Participants
commented on their knowledge of personnel for directing intervention in the process, the need
for external resources to complement internal information sources (see discussion of participant
funding in Chapters 4 and 5), and the use of team leadership to facilitate intervention.
One logistical component identified by a non-governmental organization (NGO) was a strategic
effort to recruit members with a variety of expertise to its board and organizational staff
(Interview BF). This indicates that some organizations are engaged in strategic planning to
ensure that their organization represents an array of interests.
Information dissemination emphasized written communication. Five organizations identified
various types of written material, including reports to their Board, websites, newsletters and
electronic communication used to encourage contact between members. Meetings with
organizational members were also an important tool used for information sharing, including both
formal and informal discussion among organizational members.
Beyond the methods described above, information can be distributed among organizational
members through formal debriefing sessions on key topics, and planned presentations to other
units in the organization.
6.1.2
Information interpretation: What methods do organizations use to
interpret learning?
As discussed in Chapter 2, organizations should have systems for developing shared meaning
and a common understanding of experiences. Table 6.3 lists methods utilized by research
participants. This table illustrates that research participants did not identify a variety of methods
157
through which organizations developed a common understanding of events. This dearth of

varied methods could be attributed to a number of explanations.
Table 6.3: Methods for developing shared meaning from experience identified by
research participants.
Government
Public Actors
INFORMATION INTERPRETATION
Media
Shared meaning
richness39
Post hoc analysis
Post hoc analysis
Lessons- learned
workshop
Development
Membership with
of assessment
common goals
Common cultural
documentation
practices
Inter-organizational
coalitions (*)
Environmental
Standard
management
formats for
EA critiques
systems
Information
overload40
Not relevant
Not relevant
Unlearning41
Not relevant
Not relevant
Not relevant
Not relevant
Other vehicles for

organizational memory
(Gibson, personal
communication, March
23, 2005; Molnar &
Mulvihill, 2003)
(*) this aspect is discussed in section 6.1.3)
First, although participants were asked about internal systems for sharing information, questions
did not focus on mechanisms for developing shared meaning. While this was an oversight, this
research is focused on participation in one activity: an EA that includes hearings. Because
discussion coalesces around this event, in my experience from participating in EAs, I would
suggest that an organizations participation in the EA goes a long way to developing shared
meaning from that experience. For example, members of an organization participating in
hearings share meals, or meet in the evenings to debrief daily events. In this way, organizational
members discuss activities, and develop shared understanding of events. Although no one
39 Media richness is defined as a mediums capacity to change mental representations within a specific
time interval (Daft&Huber, 1987,p.14). It considers both the type of information the media can
convey, and the opportunities for feedback (Huber 1996).
40 Information overload detracts from an organizations learning, as knowledge exceeds the members
capacities to process data (Huber 1996).
41 Unlearning is a functional processes through which learners discard knowledge (Huber 1996).
158
identified these informal gatherings as a means of generating shared experience, during the EA
of the Wuskwatim projects, for example, I observed informal intra-organizational discussions
about hearing events. The structure of these discussions reflected conversations I have been
involved with in past EAs. In and of itself, the EA serves as both an internal and external system
for sharing information.
Furthermore, some categories identified as systems for interpreting information, namely
information overload and unlearning, are not appropriate in this instance. Although participants
may have experienced information overload, this was not identified by participants.
Furthermore, information overload is often a function of EA, not specific organizational
practices (Fitzpatrick & Sinclair, 2003), as it is used in the organizational learning literature.
Similarly, unlearning relates to an organizations capacity to discard knowledge. Short of a
perspective transformation, which has yet to be a documented outcome of an EA (Diduck &
Mitchell, 2003), this system contributes to a discussion of barriers to learning, not research
directed at learning outcomes.
Four state actors, representing government and administrative tribunals, completed post hoc
analyses of EA activities. The purpose was to document the experience of assessment
participants, to improve performance in future activities. Two of the five government
departments participating in this research noted some attempt to record lessons learned through
formal procedures. One government unit conducted a formal lessons learned workshop with
employees and consultants. Another suggested that experiences could contribute to a
departmental wide post hoc analysis. Both administrative tribunals completed post hoc analysis
of the EA. One tribunal conducted written and oral interviews with assessment participants, and
conducted two workshops with members and staff. The other tribunal sent a written
questionnaire to assessment participants. Internally, there are plans to conduct a lessons
learned workshop with tribunal members. Although the scope of the review, and methods
employed to conduct the research differed, results nonetheless create a picture of assessment
activities, which, in part, contribute to each organizations understanding of the experience.
NGOs identified less formal methods for developing shared meaning from their experience. In
the first instance, membership in particular NGOs is primarily of like-minded individuals, who
subscribe to an organizational mandate (Interview AU, AV, AT, AQ, AS, AZ). Although some
organizations have paid staff, activities are often supported by the [volunteer] membership.
159
These members already subscribe to what the literature describes as cognitive mental maps
(Huber, 1996), namely because members are attracted by the specific niche the organization
occupies (Wilson, 2002).
6.1.3
Organizational memory: How do organizations record learning
outcomes for future use?

Regardless of the processes of knowledge acquisition (Chapters 4 and 5), information
distribution (6.1.1), information interpretation (6.1.2) and organizational learning outcomes
(6.1.4), without organizational memory, learning is a moot point. If there is no mechanism to
store and retrieve learning outcomes in human or non-human memoty, then an organization
cannot develop from the experiences of its members (Covington, 1985; Walsh & Ungson, 1991).
Therefore, organizational memory is critical to organizational learning.
Organizational memory includes two dimensions: human and non-human (Huber 1996).
Human elements relate to the memories and experiences of organizational members, with
sufficient understanding of the capacity of organizational members (see section 6.1.1). Non
human elements involve information management systems directed at collecting learning from
organizational members, and storing that information. They can also involve structural and
procedural changes that direct attention to specific issues, important to an organization (for
example environmental management systems). Many of the non-human methods are products
arising from activities designed to develop shared meaning from experience (see 6.1.2). Table
6.4 lists the components of organizational memory identified by research participants.
As noted by the frequent reference to human memoty in Table 6.4, people serve a critical
function in organizational memory. At the most basic level, individuals are able to access
learning outcomes. If these individuals maintain membership in organizations, they can serve as
leaders for future interventions, or, at a minimum, provide support and advice for future
interventions.
Some organizations, however, indicated that beyond serving as receptacles for information,
members actively use their experience to plan for future activities. For example, two
government units and one non-governmental organization indicated that specific individuals are
actively developing strategies for future engagement in EA (Interviews AE, AZ, AF).
160
Table 6.4: Components of organizational memory identified by research participants.
Government
Public Actors
Other vehicles for

organizational memory
(Romme & Dillen, 1997)
ORGANIZATIONAL MEMORY
Non-Human elements
Human42
Human memory
Report of post hoc study
Record of assessment activities
Planning for future
activities
Assessment Report
Human memory
Report of post hoc study
Human memory
Addition to existing structures
Planning for future
including strategic business plan, test
activities
Inter-organizational
case dockets, and policy manual
coalitions
Mentorship programs
Multiple members on
issues
Organizational culture
Journal articles
Conference presentations
(shared history,
Standard procedures
dialogue)
External individuals
Physical layout
(accountants, former
employees)
Beyond memory and planning programs, NGOs identified a number of ways that learning is
recorded by living members. As discussed in section 4.7.2, some NGOs actively pursue interorganizational coalitions. If two or more organizations work together in an EA, representatives
of each group share that experience. In this respect, redundancy is created; if the learning
becomes inaccessible to one group, the representative of the other organization can serve as an
important resource. Conscious redundancies are also an effective strategy within an
organization. One participant noted that two or more people are assigned to any given file; in
that way, if one person leaves the group, the second member has the knowledge and then can
train another person. This type of relationship can be formalized in a mentorship program,
another strategy NGOs use to create and preserve organizational memory among members.
In addition to human memory, organizations can store data through non-human methods. A post
hoc analysis, discussed above, serves an important function for debriefing and documenting
42 Humans store knowledge in individual memory, assumptions, values and articulated beliefs (Walsh &
Ungson, 1991, p.63).
161
lessons from specific experiences, as noted by the different actors who utilized this tool.
However, this exercise is not the only non-human element of organizational memory. Records
of assessment activities document specific processes, and form an important resource for storing
data. Although not specifically identified by state actors, both government and administrative
tribunals maintain extensive documentation libraries, including public registries and records (s.
4.5.1.2 and 5.5.1.2 ) and internal documentation systems, which are generally accessible through
access to information legislation43. Non-govemmental organizations also keep records of
interventions, through material such as board minutes, newsletters, and document libraries.
While this information does not provide a succinct summary of organizational learning, as
illustrated by reference to this material through Chapters 4 and 5, these systems document how
participants were engaged in the review and provide evidence of learning associated with these
interventions.
Additional methods through which organizations can build learning into institutional memory
include participation in conferences and peer reviewed journals. Learning can also contribute to
operational manuals or even change the physical layout of the organizations office (Romme &
Dillen, 1997).
As illustrated in Table 6.4, NGOs identified the most varied mechanisms for recording
organizational memory. Although these groups were unable to perform the comprehensive post
hoc analyses completed by state actors, they utilized a variety of mechanisms to store material.
The importance of organizational memory, however, is in an organizations ability to map
storage systems, and retrieve data when required (Walsh & Ungson, 1991). These aspects
should be discussed in detail in future research related to organizational learning through EA.
6.1.4
What organizational learning outcomes are associated with
participation in EA?
As discussed above, organizations learn when they acquire knowledge deemed useful to any of
the organizations parts. Organizational learning involves inquiry, detection and correction of
the theories in use by organizations. It includes two scales. Single-loop learning focuses on
improved performance, and double-loop learning involves a restructured approach to achieving
43 In Manitoba, this is found in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, F 175, SM
1997 c. 50.
162
organizational objectives. Organizations involved in EA identified learning outcomes consistent

with both dimensions of learning (see Table 6.5).
Government actors expressed two categories of learning outcomes associated with improving
their performance in EA: organizational practices and communication strategies. Organizational
practices involve adjustments to how organizations approach EA, designed to solicit improved
results from participation in this activity. Three participants, representing two government
departments, identified changes to organizational practices associated with participation in EA
(AF, AG, AH). One organization noted that it has learned to use EA as a means of streamlining
its review of a project.
We have tried to make [the data required for our review of the application] more
and more part of the EA, so that (a) its out there for everybody to see, and (b) [our
concerns are also addressed through mitigation].In this way we have taken care of
the groundwork prior to entering the regulatory phase (Interview AH).
In this way, the department refined specific practices to increase the rate of return associated
with participation in this activity. The consequence of this change, it hopes, will be to see
identification and resolution of issues during the EA (before the regulatory process). Another
organization identified the development of resource filing systems, designed to expedite access
to pertinent assessment documentation; in other words, it improved non-human systems for
organizational memory to ensure that with each subsequent EA process, organizational members
had access to specific assessment material, processes and learning outcomes associated with
previous experiences.
A second aspect of single-loop organizational learning relates to communication. Two
organizations indicated that, as a result of the EA, their groups refined communication
techniques. Basically, they altered the media and message of their intervention, to strengthen
their message (get people to listen to them). Single-loop learning by state actors, then, includes
practices directed at improving an organizations performance in EA in streamlining preparation
for participation and improving communication techniques.
163
Table 6.5: Organizational learning outcomes associated with participation in EA.
SINGLE-LOOP LEARNING
Government
Organizational practices (Interviews AF, BF,
AG, AH)
Communication strategies (Interviews AH,
B F )Administrative Tribunals
Strengthening the process (Interview BA,
(Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact
Review Board, 2005)
Public Actors
Communication strategies (Interviews AU,
AV, AT)
DOUBLE-LOOP LEARNING
How to use the process to further
organizational objectives (Interview AI, BF).
Success of dialogue as a method for resolving
outstanding issues (Interviews AF, AG, AH).
Consider different approaches for engaging
communities (Mackenzie Valley
Environmental Impact Review Board (2005).
How to use the process to further
organizational objectives (Interviews AU,
AV).
How to prepare for future EA (Interviews AL,
AS) - In fact I am writing up a plan right now
for the different ways that we would be
involved in the future. Because we dont know
for sure when it is coming, but we know it will
in the next five years or so (Interview AS).
Organizational skills (Interviews AM, AQ) I think it probably bolsters [my
organizations] confidence in its ability to
affect policy, to the extent that the final
recommendations reflect some of the evidence
that was presented in our intervention
(Interview AQ).
Organizational interest in EA (Interviews AL,
AM, AN) - We are starting to develop a
language for talking about environment as a
cost, and social-cultural issues as a cost. We
are coming to a way to put it together - not
always recognize the two things and keep them
separate, but actually be able to some how put
them together(Interview AL).
State actors also identified learning outcomes focused on changing the structure of the process.
This theme involves two categories: dialogue as a method for resolving issues, and using the
process to further organizational objectives. With respect to the former, three participants
representing two organizations suggested that the assessment process be modified to increase
opportunities for dialogue (Interviews AF, AG, AH). The success of dialogue as a means of
encouraging resolution of assessment issues and learning is discussed in greater detail in section
6.2.2. The EA process was also seen as a vehicle for furthering organizational objectives. Two
164
state actors suggested that they modified their theory-in-use to expand the goals of their
intervention beyond specific project design. Rather than focus solely on strengthening the
project design, their intervention in the EA was designed to solicit changes in resource
management in their jurisdiction. The saw it as a way of encouraging broader policy changes to
address deficiencies in the overall system for governing resource management (as described in
sections 4.7.2 and 5.7.2). What makes this relevant to a discussion of organizational learning is
that, to achieve this goal, the organizations had to strategically modify their intervention and
they had to change their routine to push for broader changes in structure. In doing so,
organizations engaged in double-loop learning.
Although the intention of this dialogue is to maintain the confidentiality of participant
organizations through non-disclosure of case study, it is necessary to make an exception in one
instance. State actors associated with the Snap Lake project identified all of the organizational
learning outcomes discussed above. However, no state actors identified organizational learning
outcomes associated with participation in the Wuskwatim projects. These different learning
outcomes are likely because of the different roles of state actors in each review process.
Government departments were active participants in the Snap Lake review, while they
completed their assessment prior to the hearings for the Wuskwatim projects. As such, it would
be challenging for the Manitoba departments to identify organizational learning associated with
this component of the review.
Tribunals identified a number of single-loop learning outcomes associated with strengthening
the review process. Examples of outcomes directed at improving the EA process include:
identify a strategy for each EA that specifies the purpose and structure of each
component of the review (Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board,
2005),
develop a resource system for issues that commonly emerge during EAs that identify
long- and short-term solutions to issues (Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact
Review Board, 2005),
address issues surrounding the implementation of Board recommendations using the

NWT Environmental Audit (Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board,
2005),
165
clarify definition of intervener and directly affected parties (Mackenzie Valley

Environmental Impact Review Board, 2005),
explain the role and function of Board staff (Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact
Review Board, 2005),
strengthen the IR process (Interview BA), and
improve the hearing schedule (Interview BA).
With respect to refining the structure of the process, or double-loop learning, one learning
outcome was identified. The MVEIRB acknowledged that communities have different
communication needs; it elected to examine these requirements to establish appropriate
protocols for engaging specific groups in the review. As noted in its lessons learned document
(Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board, 2005, p.9),
The process used by communities to respond to requests should be detailed in order
to understand the differences in approach from community to community and
identify appropriate approaches for the Board to use.
Tribunal actors identified a myriad of single-loop learning outcomes associated with the case
studies. Only one double-loop learning outcome was identified.
The learning outcomes of public actors heavily favored double-loop learning. Only one category
of outcomes, communication strategies, was associated with single-loop learning. In this
instance, three participants, representing two organizations, linked changes in communication
strategies with participation in this process (Interviews AU, AV, AT). Like state actors,
discussed above, these organizations learned to refine the communication tools through which
they presented their ideas to the tribunal.
In terms of changing the structure of the process, NGOs identified four categories of learning
outcomes: using the process to further organizational objectives, preparation for future EAs,
organizational skills, and organizational interest in EA.
Like state actors, one NGO, represented by two individuals (Interviews AU, AV), indicated that
it has learned how to use EA to further organizational objectives. As described above, this
strategy involves expanding the scope of an organizations intervention to solicit changes in
166
resource management in its jurisdiction to addresses outstanding deficiencies in this governance

framework (as described in sections 4.7.2 and 5.7.2).
With respect to future EA, two public actors identified the need to develop long-term plans for
future interventions. According to these organizations, following their participation, they
realized a need to engage in long-term research in order to prepare adequately for future
interventions. In this respect, they are undertaking strategic planning to determine how they will
be involved in future assessments, including consideration of strengthening social networks to
facilitate participation (section 4.7.2 and 5.7.2).
Two organizations acknowledge that their organization acquired skills that extend beyond
specific EAs. As noted in Table 6.5, these skills include strategic qualities such as confidence,
and functional skills such as how to prepare interventions. These skills are classified as double
loop learning because they go beyond the problem-solving results of single-loop learning to
develop a new organizational culture (Romme & Dillen, 1997).
In a similar vein, organizations suggested that their engagement in this process increased
organizational interest in EA. They have changed their theory-in-use about the methods through
which they achieve broad goals to include consideration of the environment. Participation in EA
is no longer situated at the margin of their organizational activities, but is slowly moving into
their area of interest, which may result in changing routines.
6.1.5
Discussion
All organizations in the case studies have the necessary systems for learning, and all
organizations identified individual, policy-oriented and/or organizational learning outcomes
associated with participation in the EA. This finding is consistent with literature that explores
opportunities for individual (Diduck & Mitchell, 2003; Fitzpatrick & Sinclair, 2003) and social
learning (Palerm, 2000; Webler et al,, 1995) through EA. Furthermore, it strengthens research
that identifies enhanced organizational skills associated with interactive policy processes
(Alexander, 1999; Poncelet, 2001). The findings also reinforce the decision to use actors as the
unit of analysis for organizational learning rather than the case study, as different types of actors
from both case studies shared similar organizational learning outcomes. Learning by state
actors, including government and tribunals, emphasizes mechanisms designed to improve
performance within existing structures. Public actors, however, identified more outcomes
167
associated with changes to their theory-in-use, designed to change the structure of the EA
process.
State actors are directed to administer policy and, as such, they may be more interested and able
to refine policy implementation than rebel against this system. Public actors, on the other hand,
are not charged with administering this process, and as such, may be more interested in
reforming the overarching mechanisms for resource management. Both approaches are
necessary to strengthen resource management.
Much of the double-loop learning lends itself to policy-oriented learning, discussed in sections
4.7,2 and 5.7.2. This association is predictable, as both categories of learning focus on changing
existing institutions. However, it is important that both double-loop and policy-oriented learning
are identified. Neither category adequately captures all of the themes expressed by its
counterpart; for example, double-loop learning does not capture the importance of social
networking, while policy-oriented learning does not capture changes to organizational culture.
Despite some duplication in terms of results, each category of learning has sufficiently different
foci; as such, both remain important when considering organizational learning associated with
participation in EA.
Overlap between instrumental and communicative learning, and organizational learning (both
single- and double-loop learning and policy-oriented learning), as discussed in section 4.7.1,
stems from the idea that the individual is the agent of organizational learning; individual learning
is necessary, but not sufficient for an organization to learn. The significance is that the findings
strengthen the assertion that transformative learning can account for social change extending
beyond the individual, discussed in section 2.3.1 (Aalsburg Wiessner & Mezirow, 2000; Yorks
& Marsick, 2000). Transformative learning, then, provides a lens for considering learning
outcomes transferred to social networks, and, in doing so, contributes to social learning.
Although all organizations in the case studies identified learning outcomes associated with
participation in the EAs, it is difficult to conclude how these outcomes contribute to specific and
enduring changes in organizational behaviour (beyond what has been identified above).
Consideration of organizational change necessitates longitudinal monitoring; the timeframe of
this research precluded in-depth analysis related to organizational behaviour. In the absence of a
168
longer time frame, pursuing a historical case study, as discussed in section 3.1.1, would have
provided the opportunity to note change, if baseline conditions could be adequately established.
The analysis of organizational learning grounded in the management literature is important to
the theoretical framework, presented in section 2.5 for two reasons. First, this approach focuses
attention on the organization as a unit of analysis, and, as described above, illustrates how
individual learning can contribute to shared convictions among groups of people, a concept
important to social change (Merriam & Caffarella, 1999). Furthermore, this analysis sheds lights
on the intra-organizational dynamics that contribute to the development of shared conviction,
information distribution, information interpretation and organizational memory. Although
transformative learning can address the outcomes, organizational learning explores the dynamics
associated with social learning.
6.2
Nature of the Relationship
As illustrated by the two case studies, organizations can learn through participation in EA.
Participants identified a variety of individual, policy-oriented, and organizational learning
outcomes associated with their involvement in the assessment hearings. To complement this
discussion, participants were asked to discuss the relationship between learning and EA, and
identify the qualities of EA most conducive to learning.
6.2.1
Learning Events: Is there a relationship between EA and learning?
When asked if EA was a learning experience, all responded that indeed, there is a relationship
between these two aspects. A sample of responses includes:
[Learning] is the essence of EA. EA is to inform decision making, and you only get
informed decision making through what you learned. And the process provides for
scientific learning in respect to that particular project, and decisions to be taken
based on the EA. So absolutely, it is integral to it, it is what it is about (Interview
AD).
I would find it inconceivable that EA is not a venue for learning. And if you have
not learned, you have not done an EA (Interview AJ).
169
I personally think that EA is one of the most powerful tools of decision making that
there is. Especially if it is integrated with good planning, and it really involves the
community, and actually identifies the foundation for decisions - it doesnt just
identify this is significant or this isnt - it actually gets at the way those
decisions are truly being made so that people can agree with that value judgment or
not. If those things can be identified, I think that it is unbelievable (Interview AR).
Additional observations that link EA and learning note:
EA requires learning because the process is constantly evolving (Interview AA),
experiential learning by participants strengthens future processes (Interviews BA, AM,

AQ) - [I]t is a learning process for everybody. And we would like it to continue to be a
learning process, and have the bar get raised (Interview BA),
learning outcomes contribute to future activities of participant organizations (Interviews

AK,AQ),
learning outcomes, and EA decisions, become important tools for pressuring

governments to strengthen environmental policy (Interviews AU, AV),
EA is an important tool for generating information (Interview AL, AQ),
EA provides a venue to learn and educate participants (Interviews AC, AD, AH, AT,
AQ), and,
the learning curve changes with the nature of a project; with some projects, more
learning occurs (Interviews AC, BA).
There is overwhelming acknowledgement by research participants that learning is significant to

EA. These results are notable because not only do they corroborate assertions in the literature
that EA provides a vehicle for learning (Diduck, 1995; Diduck & Sinclair, 1997a, 1997b; Webler
et al, 1995), but they suggest that participants see value in this association. This finding
suggests that learning should be taken into account during the design and implementation of EA,
and in normative models of public participation. Learning, it seems, is no longer at the fringe of
public participation44.
44 When I conducted my first study involving learning through EA in 2000, the majority of my participants
questioned the link between these two concepts. Other initiatives, for example research by Sinclair &
Fitzpatrick (2002), saw suggestions related to education and learning overlooked (among others) in
proposed changes to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Over time, more evaluative
170
6.2.2
Qualities: What aspects of the assessment were most conducive to
learning?
When asked to identify the quality of the assessment process most conducive to learning, 15
respondents identified activities that encouraged interaction among participants (Interviews BB,
BC, BD, AJ, AL, AM, AN, AT, AU, AZ, AA, AE,AF, AG, AH). Activities identified as
particularly useful included:
hearings (7 participants) - I guess the ones that are most useful to people in general are
the public hearings. Because that is an opportunity - people really operate on a face-toface manner, an oral manner, and the closest the process comes to that are the public
hearings, so you have everyone sitting there and you can see everybodys faces, and you
can put a face to each company and each agency and board member, whatever. And you
can go and talk to them face to face and say This is our concern.(Interview AZ),
technical sessions - Snap Lake project (4 participants) - I think the technical sessions,
even with all their limitations, that is where you get into the details. You ask questions,
you put on the table the what ifs (Interview AH),
pre hearing meetings (1 participant) - I thought that the prehearing meetings were
really a good idea. They were ... pretty proactive, so I had hoped that that would sort of
get some of the information deficiencies out of the way, and prepare people (Interview
AZ), and,
guidelines scoping meetings - Wuskwatim project (1 participant) - that was interesting,

to develop guidelines for an environmental impact statement for a hydro development.
We learned a lot from that, and we were fortunate to have the Clean Environmental
Commission [involved] (Interview AA).
This finding supports past research that identifies face-to-face exchange as important to public
involvement (Innes, 1998; Webler et al., 1995).
Written documentation was also identified as important. Three participants suggested this
material was important for setting up effective verbal communication (Interviews AM, AN,
frameworks for public involvement have considered learning, for example Palerm (2000) and Webler et
al. (1995), but there is little evidence that this is considered when designing interactive policy processes.
Strong support for this relationship is significant for illustrating the importance of learning to EA.
171
AA). I have to say the pre-filed materials - 1 take them for what they are worth. They lay a
foundation (Interview AM). However, according to these participants, while the written
material is important, the verbal exchange, discussed above, is more conducive to learning.
In contrast, two participants suggested that written documentation provided the strongest
foundation for learning (Interviews BA, AR):
Well, one thing that I have found very useful... is the written exchange prior to the
actual hearing. Because you can try to narrow down points, and get an actual
response. And [that type of exchange of information does not always] happen in a
hearings process. In a hearing, you say your piece and it gets into a transcript
somewhere, and that is it (Interview AR).
As noted in sections 4.5.1.3 and 5.5.1.3, other people were less supportive of the IR process. In
fact, 6 participants (Interviews AJ, AA, AE, AG, AS) suggested that the written IR process was
the least useful part of the assessment. The interrogatory process, in my view, was ridiculous.
So that was not useful at all (Interview AC). Another noted that after the second round, this
tool did not contribute to an expedient resolution of ideas.
Other qualities of the assessment process identified as particularly useful by research participants
include:
the continuous exchange of information throughout the entire review (Interviews AQ,
AD) - What jumped to mind right off the bat is that it is continuous learning from start
to finish.. .from our perspective, it is learning from start to finish, continuous learning
(Interview AD),
activities with a combination of written material and verbal discussion (Interviews AN,
AB) and,
an informal environment (Interviews AC, BB, AT) - I think there was a little bit too
much of an adversarial approach to things at the hearings... .1 think that could be worked
on in the future (Interview AC). This finding supports literature that suggests public
consultation should be deliberative in nature, not adversarial (Alexander, 1999; Innes,
1998; Petts, 2003).
A common theme of all of these comments is that they are based on the idea of an exchange of
information. While in many cases participants suggested this was best achieved through
172
dialogue, the one person who identified IRs as the most useful process did so because they were
seen as the best way to facilitate sharing of ideas. This notion - sharing of information as a
means of promoting learning - supports the assertion in the education literature that learners
should be confronted with a range of alternative perspectives (Mezirow, 1991; Preskill & Torres,
1999; Shor, 1993).
This theme also corroborates Habermas (1984, 1987,1999) emphasis on dialogue as a vehicle
to negotiate lifeworld activities. Most participants identified activities in which participants
meet face-to-face to discuss outstanding issues as being the most significant for learning; these
methods rely on dialogue as a means of sharing and debating information. As such, they
reaffirm the importance of language as a means of negotiating resolutions, or shared
understanding to outstanding issues.
Many of the aspects of EA that promoted learning allowed for issues of substance to be
discussed. For example, the technical sessions in the Snap Lake project allowed participants to
discuss and question the science associated with the proposal. It should be noted, however, that
the opportunity for issues of substance to be considered as part of EA is case specific and
depend on how broadly key aspects of the assessment are cast. If aspects like the consideration
of alternatives and the definition of the environment are narrowly defined, then subsequent
discussion will be limited, and opportunities to learn and achieve more sustainable decisions
likely will be curtailed.
6.3
Learning and Sustainable Development
The intent of this research is to document opportunities for organizational learning associated
with participation in EA, not to evaluate the contribution of learning to sustainable development.
However, this study contributes to the literature (Diduck & Sinclair, 1997a, 1997b; Diduck,
Sinclair, & Shymko, 2000; Sinclair & Diduck, 1995,2000,2001) that examines the relationships
among EA, learning and sustainable development. It is appropriate to provide preliminary
observations about this relationship
As discussed in section 2.2.1, because of the mandate of EA to integrate attention to the
environmental, ecological, and social impacts of development, it is reasonable to use sustainable
development as a guiding force for EA (Gibson 2000). Furthermore, Wilkens (2003) argues that
173
sustainable development can be a product of the interactive opportunities of EA, particularly

where these opportunities contribute to social learning
The discourse that is nurtured through EIA influences the values people hold
regarding the environment and their communities. It promotes the development of
values that foster greater personal and social responsibility and has the capacity to
increase the importance of long-term environmental considerations in decision
making (Wilkens, 2003, p. 402).
Discourse about environmental values leads to social learning, which contributes to sustainable
development. As illustrated in the two cases discussed above, EA can provide a means for
discourse. EA also lends itself to multiple scales of learning. Does this learning contribute to
sustainable development?
To complete this preliminary analysis, I return to Gibsons (2002) criteria for guiding sustainable
decisions: integrity, sufficiency and opportunity, equity, efficiency, democracy and civility,
precaution, and long- and short-term integration. These principles were prepared to decrease
conflict associated with balancing the traditional pillars of sustainable development, where the
necessity of achieving positive change in each pillar makes sustainability appear as a complex,
unreachable goal for EA. The principles strengthen the linkages among the pillars and
encourage corrective actions be woven together - to serve multiple objectives and to seek
positive feedbacks in complex systems (Gibson, 2002, chap. 2). To that end, the last principle
supports long- and short- term integration of each criterion.
This holistic approach is simultaneously a strength and limitation of this metric. As observed by
Gibson (2002, chap. 2)
While we may live in a real world of complex systems, our brains are small, our
time and resources for research constrained, and our institutional capacities limited.
Thus, his principles are designed to, at a minimum, direct attention to the steps necessary to
achieve sustainable development, and ultimately guide EA process design to address these
aspects and the inevitable trade-offs (2002, chpt. 6).
Since my discussion does not relate to EA, but rather to the learning outcomes associated with
participation in the process, it is challenging to apply these criteria in the holistic way in which
they were intended (see the definition of long- and short-term integration). It is, however,
174
possible to consider whether learning associated with EA contributes to positive feedback in the
target areas of human arrangement and activity (Gibson, 2002, chap. 2) identified by the
principles. This application has benefit not only because it serves as a preliminary analysis of
the relationship among learning, EA, and sustainable development, but also because it forces
attention on these principles. However, it is important to acknowledge that this evaluation is
based on my focus on the assessment process, rather than on the substance of each review.
Integrity encourages strengthening human relations designed to maintain ecological systems.
With respect to the former - strengthening human relations - both case studies demonstrate that
participants leam to strengthen inter-organizational activities as a means of improving
performance in environmental assessment (sections 4.7.2, 5.7.2).
With respect to ecological systems, participants in both case studies identified instrumental
learning related to the biophysical, social, and economic environments, and understanding of the
potential impacts of the developments with respect to these systems (sections 4.7.1 and 5.7.1).
In the Snap Lake case, this knowledge was improved with each subsequent EA; participants
expectations of necessary and appropriate mitigation measures increased as each diamond
development was assessed (see the discussion of waste treatment in section 5.7.1). These
outcomes suggest that, through EA, participants leam to strengthen human relations that
contribute to the maintenance of ecological systems.
Democracy and civility involve reconstructing governance to ensure there is a connection
between different levels of decision making. This principle is concerned with ensuring that
customary, market, administrative and personal choices are integrated, so that all systems of
decision making contribute to the tenets of sustainability in complementary ways. This research
is similarly concerned with integrating these systems, inasmuch as it examines organizational
and individual learning outcomes associated with participation in policy development. Rather
than focusing on the assessment decision, this study examines how EA processes contribute to
learning as one means through which society is persuaded to act in the common interest of
sustainable development (see section 2.3). Although behavioural outcomes associated with
learning are not discussed in this research (in part, due to an insufficient longitudinal analysis),
results surrounding legal, political and administrative procedures suggest that case study
participants were encouraged to continue participation in EA. A desire by NGOs to continue
participating in EAs contributes to democracy and civility by pushing government and
175
administrative tribunals to further interactive policy making. Efforts to strength public

participation can, in turn, improve linkages between administrative and personal choice and,
move forward an environmental agenda through the use of EA to propel sustainablity initiatives
(see section 6.1.4).
The most directly relevant learning contributing to a substantive understanding of efficiency
options was the research by Torrie et al. (2004) that promoted alternatives to the Wuskwatim
generation station and a portfolio approach to the economic analysis of the proposal. If one
interprets the description of efficiency more liberally, it is possible to suggest that outcomes
directed at improving the process by decreasing the time involved in the review ultimately
reduce overall material and energy demands of participation in the process.
There is no evidence that learning outcomes propel sufficiency an d opportunity, equity, and
precaution, or the immediate- a n d long- term integration of these principles. As Gibsons
(2002) principles were introduced after both EAs commenced, neither process was designed
around this framework. Therefore, it is ambitious to think that each principle would be
adequately canvassed in the EA, or direct the learning outcomes of participants. To propel the
sustainable development agenda, however, learning outcomes should reflect the range of
principles. Future research should not only evaluate the opportunities for learning through each,
but also provide direction on the learning outcomes amenable to furthering the goals of
sustainable development.
Learning, as illustrated by the two case studies, addresses a set of human relations aimed at
greening existing patterns of production, consumption and lifestyles. However, as exemplified
by the EAs of the Wuskwatim projects and Snap Lake project, a wider range of learning
outcomes is necessary to ensure learning addresses the full range of principles associated with
sustainable development
6.4
A Tale of Two Cases
As noted throughout the dissertation, the processes used to assess the Wuskwatim projects and
the Snap Lake project shared many similarities, including the scoping of assessment guidelines,
a technical review that included IRs, and hearings. The assessments also differed on a number
of aspects including the development context, capacity of participants, and role of government in
176
the review. These changes affected the learning environment, the conditions for individual and
organizational learning, and ultimately the learning outcomes of assessment participants.
Both assessments included many opportunities for meaningful public participation that
contributed to learning, including comment on the scope of the review (sections 4.4 and 5.4).
The Wuskwatim project included public meetings as part of this process. Despite improved
efforts to engage the public in the development of the assessment agenda, participants ultimately
did not share a common understanding of what the EA should consider. Consequently,
participants took steps to continually negotiate the scope throughout the review. The Snap Lake
project relied solely on written submissions to solicit input on the scope of the EA. In this case,
the MVEIRB modified the guidelines significantly to reflect the comments received by the
participants. After this process, there was little discussion about the scope of the review, save
how the assessment did or did not address specific components of the review (see section 5.6.1).
One factor that contributed to successful changes to the assessment scope was the experience of
the participants. Involved in the third diamond review in a decade, many participants were
familiar with the strengths and limitations of the review process. While the requested change
pushed the limits of previous guidelines, for example the request to include discussion of
corporate history, participants did not use the scope of the EA to push for significant policy
changes, illustrated by the request to change the temporal scale of Wuskwatim review. The
result of this approach was that the MVEIRB was able to achieve a greater level of consensus
about the assessment agenda, which in turn, allowed participants to focus on other issues during
the review. This finding corroborates Petts (2003) observation that framing assessment issues
(or, in the words of this dissertation establishing the learning agenda) is one of the key aspects of
a successful public participation program.
This finding is also significant as conventional written submissions usually are considered less
interactive than meetings. Praxis (1988, pp.59-60) classifies written submission as a tool for
soliciting comments (information feedback), while meetings are an opportunity to develop twoway communication (consultation) (see also Petts, 1999). The case studies illustrate that the
interactive nature of any involvement technique must also consider responsiveness of the
authority to requests by participants.
During both reviews, a significant quantity of material was generated. As noted by one
participant of the EA of the Snap Lake project, there is a marked difference between quantity
177
and quality of documentation. This material was shared with the participants and the public
through a variety of mediums, including media, public registry, IRs, and hearings. While
sections 4.5 and 5.5 detail the strengths and weaknesses of the various tools employed to share
this information, in both cases issues arose surrounding the accuracy and completeness of
assessment data, and opportunities to explore alternative perspectives. Both sets of participants
were divided with respect to the completeness of information. Half the participants of the
Wuskwatim projects suggested that the proponents evidence was not always accurate, and in
some cases, was insufficiently tested during the review. Factors contributing to this appraisal
include different approaches to the evidence pursued by assessment participants and presenters,
and the role of government in the review. Participants of the Snap Lake project were equally
divided with respect to the completeness of the dataset. Factors underlying this appraisal
included the lack of participant funding to undertake independent research, and weakness in the
proponents analysis.
With respect to timing of the review, both EAs extended beyond the timelines specified by the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency for assessments that include hearings. Most
participants of both processes observed the extended time frames were necessary, given the
processes used to assess the project. One component viewed to extend the review unnecessarily
in both cases was the IRs. Participants in both processes suggested that this process should be
reexamined to ensure that IRs do not generate massive amounts of information, and
unnecessarily generate another set of documentation.
A second area of dissonance involved the timing of the hearings. Hearings for the Wuskwatim
projects lasted 32 days, over a four month period; the MVEIRB used 5 days to hear the Snap
Lake project. These cases demonstrate that early resolution of issues results in shorter, more
focused hearings. Smith (1982, p.562) once noted the absence of early public involvement at
the normative and strategic levels in planning has led to a tendency for public hearings at the
operational level to become greatly expanded in scope and to develop into protracted debates
over a wide variety of issues. Beyond early public involvement at the normative level, it
appears that ensuring public involvement programs contribute to a resolution of issues is
important. Strengthening opportunities to address technical concerns through a variety of
methods, including IRs and technical meetings with all participants, allows for more focused,
shorter hearings, as demonstrated by the Snap Lake project. However, this directive requires
178
additional information management tools to track the progress of key issues, as noted in section
5.5.1.2.
As with the timing of the review, when asked about the fairness of the process, participants of
both processes expressed a variety of opinions. Participants of the Wuskwatim EA suggested
opportunities to make the hearings more equitable for participants, presenters and members of
the general audience (see section 4.6.2). Participants of the Snap Lake processes suggested ways
to improve access to the review process (see section 5.6.2).
Given the different execution of each EA, learning outcomes associated with each also differed.
Table 6.6 compares the categories of learning. There were aspects of overlap with respect to
instrumental learning, although more participants of the Wuskwatim projects identified a wider
array of outcomes. Participants of the Snap Lake project could not always link instrumental
outcomes to the specific assessment, but suggested that instrumental learning is a continuum.
With each review, participants improved their scientific, environmental social, and economic
knowledge, and how the project affects these realities (see section 4.7.1 and 5.7.1). This
learning is important for furthering the principle of integrity in sustainable development.
Procedural outcomes identified for both projects focused on improving the review process; they
contribute to the efficiency principle of sustainable development.
A wide range of communicative learning outcomes was associated with the EA. These
outcomes aim at strengthening inter- and intra-organizational approaches to the assessment, and
to improving the overall resource management regime in the North. Learning outcomes share
themes of policy networks, and intergovernmental relationships, aspects which strengthen
democracy and civility requirements of sustainable development.
179
Table 6.6: Categories of learning outcomes associated with participation in the

Wuskwatim projects and the Snap Lake project.
WUSKWATIM PROJECTS
SNAP LAKE PROJECT
In s t r u m e n t a l l e a r n i n g
Scientific and technical advice

Legal, administrative and
political procedures
Biophysical, social and

economic knowledge
Follow-up
Project components
Ways of knowing
EA process
Section 35 consultations
Reaffirmation of
understanding of process and
social dynamics
Environment
Dynamics of Northern
development
Demand management
Manitoba Hydro
Peoples capacity to act
Monitoring
Project components
Ways of knowing
EA process
Environment
Dynamics of Northern
development
Dealing with development
companies
Co m m u n ic a t iv e l e a r n in g
Insight into ones own interest
Organizational skills
Organizational interest in EA
How to prepare for future EA
Strengthening the process
Insight into the interest of

others
Communication strategies and

methods
Interactions between
governments
Interaction among different
organizations
How to become better
engaged in process
Social mobilization
Deficiencies in policy regime
Organizational skills
How to use the process to
further organizational
objectives
Strengthening the process
Different approaches for
engaging communities
Interaction among different
organizations
How to communicate more

effectively
Success of dialogue for
resolving outstanding issues
Deficiencies in policy regime
Deficiencies in assessment
methodology
While there is no one good public involvement program (Webler, Seth, & Kruger, 2001),
building on the notion that learning is critical to environmental assessment (section 6.2.1), it is
possible to develop a list of best practices based on both case studies. To foster learning, an
EA should:
180
strengthen interactive policy making by not only including opportunities for public
participation, but also by demonstrating that the input affects both the review process
and decision making. This finding supports research that notes the public should have
access to participatory processes (Tuler, Webler, Shockey, & Stem, 2002), and notes
that the public should be cognizant of how its input affects decisions (Petts, 1999),
encourage participants to share a variety of alternative perspectives through presenting

new research, or cross examining the proponent. This supports the ideal conditions for
learning promoted through learning literature (see for example Mezirow, 1991; Preskill
& Torres, 1999; Shor, 1993),
provide participant funding. This finding corroborates a significant body of literature

that identifies the importance of providing monetary resources to support participation,
including (Diduck & Mitchell, 2003; Lynn & Wathem, 1991; Palerm, 2000; Sinclair &
Diduck, in press). Some participant funding should be directed at ensuring different
perspectives are addressed in the EA (see above),
create more opportunities for issue resolution, including face-to-face meetings, earlier in
the process. This supports research that suggests in person exchanges are the most
successful vehicle for public involvement programs (Petts, 2003; Webler et al., 1995),
and research that supports early and on-going engagement in policy decisions (Petts,
1999, 2003; Smith, 1982),
strengthen mechanisms for document management, including issues tracking, so as to

improve opportunities for issues resolution, and
develop more opportunities for networking among advocacy coalitions. This finding
agrees with research that suggests that support from other stakeholders is important for
effective participation (Alexander, 1999; Busenberg, 2001; Krasny & Lee, 2002;
Michaels, Mason, & Solecki, 2001; Poncelet, 2001).
6.5
Conclusion
In this chapter, I turned the focus to organizational learning. I began with a discussion of
structures through which an organization acquires and stores the learning of its members,
including systems for information distribution (section 6.1.1), interpretation, and organizational
memory. In the case studies, state and public actors identified various methods for facilitating
181
this type of inquiry, suggesting that organizations involved in the assessment had the
institutional capacity necessary for learning.
A discussion of organizational learning outcomes associated with participation in the assessment
followed. As noted in section 6.1.5, learning outcomes affiliated with state actors focused on
refining the assessment process, and single-loop learning. Learning outcomes affiliated with
public actors underscored the need for changes to the existing system, or the need for double
loop learning.
Evaluation of organizational learning outcomes associated with participation in EA illustrated
overlap between instrumental and communicative learning, and organizational learning (see also
section 4.7.1). This finding is significant in that it strengthens the assertion that transformative
learning can account for social change. Despite this intersection of ideas, management literature
strengthens the analysis of organizational learning by identifying intra-organizational dynamics
that contribute to this scale of learning.
Section 6.2 explored how participants related their experience with EA to learning. Two
components were the focus of this discussion: the relationship between learning and EA, and the
qualities of the assessment process that contribute to learning. With respect to the former,
participants unanimously acknowledged that learning is important to EA. In regard to the latter,
the interactive nature of the assessment process, promoted primarily through diagolue was seen
to be important to both learning, and EA.
That participants unanimously acknowledged that EA provides a vehicle for learning, led to
consideration of the nature of the learning outcomes. Section 6.3 examined if learning
contribute to sustainable development. A preliminary analysis suggests that learning advances
some of the principles necessary to achieve sustainable development. However, a wider range of
learning is necessary to advance the interconnected components of sustainable development.
A comparative analysis of the two case studies was conducted in section 6.4. While the EAs
shared many procedural similarities, processes differed in a number of aspects including the
development context, capacity of participants, and role of government in the review. These
changes affected the learning environment, the conditions for individual and organizational
learning, and the learning outcomes of assessment participants. The section ended with a list of
182
five procedural best practices identified in the case studies and supported by assessment
literature.
183
Chapter
Seven
CONCLUSIONS
In this chapter, I review the theoretical foundation of the research and summarize the main
findings. Results are presented in terms of the three research objectives identified in Chapter 1:
What elements of individual, the learning environment, and the organization contribute
to organizational learning?
What is the relationship between EA and learning?
How does learning contribute to sustainable development?
In answering these questions, I contribute to literature that explores the linkages among
sustainable development, EA, public participation and learning. I conclude through an
exploration of the future research opportunities.
7.1
Theoretical Contributions
As discussed in Chapter 2, communicative action is a modernist approach to human relations

that focuses on dialogue as means of negotiating lifeworld activities. Developed by Habermas
(1984,1987,1999), this theory has resonance in political science (deliberative democracy),
planning (communicative planning) and education (transformative learning) literature.
Communicative action contributes to these fields by shifting discussion away from outcomes to
consideration of the process involved in achieving these outcomes, in particular highlighting the
interaction involved among actors (Alexander 1999).
With emphasis on unlimited and equal participation, and shared decision making,
communicative action has informed research that evaluates opportunities for public participation
in EA (Palerm, 2000; Petts, 2003; Webler, Kastenholz, & Renn, 1995). Alexander (1999),
Palerm (2000) and Webler et. al (1995) go beyond discussion of public participation to include
consideration of social learning as an element of effective programs of public participation.
Research by Diduck and Mitchell (2003), Diduck and Sinclair (1997a, 1997b), Fitzpatrick and
Sinclair (2003) and Sinclair and Diduck (1995) has extended this analysis to focus specifically
on opportunities for learning through public involvement in EA. This dissertation adds to this
184
field of study by exploring opportunities for organizational learning. Originality occurred

through the development of a theoretical framework consistent with communicative action to
evaluate multiple scales of learning through EA. This framework, an important contribution of
this research, considers linkages that exist between individual and organizational learning
processes (Crossan, Lane, & White, 1999). Furthermore, the framework places this research
within the specific political context of EA through a discussion of the learning environment
(Fitzpatrick & Sinclair, 2003). This framework is valuable not only for its practical
consideration of learning through discursive exercises, but also as it strengthens the pragmatic
application of communicative action in the planning literature (as discussed in section 2.1.2) and
EA.
The application of this framework to the EA of the Wuskwatim projects (Chapter 4) and the
Snap Lake project (Chapter 5) reaffirms several themes of communicate action, discussed in
Chapter 2. Participants in both case studies suggested the quality most conducive to learning
was interactive exchange of information encouraged through EA (section 6.2.2). Most
participants identified specific activities that emphasized dialogue as a means of communication,
including meetings and technical sessions as important to learning. Findings provide empirical
support for Habermas (1984,1987) claim that lifeworld issues are negotiated through dialogue.
They also corroborate research that suggests face-to-face exchange is the most productive
method to develop public involvement (Innes, 1998; Webler et al., 1995).
Results also support a longitudinal approach to dialogue. Webler et. al (1995) suggest that,
beyond project specific applications, communicative action should be applied to longitudinal
research. Case study findings lend support to this assertion, particularly with respect to learning
through EA. Some participants of the EA of the Wuskwatim projects suggested that their
involvement in the EA was predicated upon, in part, efforts to improve the assessment process
for future activities (section 4.7.1). Participants in the Snap Lake process noted that learning is
iterative (section 5.7.1); with each subsequent assessment, participants work to improve the
assessment process. In essence, rather than evaluating the strength of dialogue (and learning) on
a case by case basis, it is important to compare results over the long term. These results support
the assertion that any one exercise in discursive democracy cannot ultimately resolve conflict or
address broad social planning (Healey, 1997, Webler et at., 1995). Each interactive assessment
builds upon the lessons learned through the prior experiences of EA participants.
185
Communicative action serves as the ideal, designed to improve successive interactive exchanges
that contribute to the development of social norms.
Finally, findings add evidence to illustrate that communicative action can inform empirical
research, thereby addressing criticism that the theory is not grounded in reality (section 2.1).
Specifically, findings illustrate how deliberative democracy, one application of this theory,
informs the evaluation of learning through EA. As noted in section 2.1.1, deliberative
democracy emphasizes unlimited and equal participation, sound argumentation, and
communicative competence of participants (Dryzek 1990a). Discussion of each case study
illustrates opportunities for and limitations of the respective programs for public participation,
demonstrating support for unlimited participation (sections 4.4.1,4.4.2,5.4.1, and 5.4.2), equal
participation (sections 4.6.2 and 5.6.2), and sound argumentation (sections 4.5.2 and 5.5.2).
Results were less supportive of communicative competence as important for public participation.
In putting a premium on dialogue and interaction, communicative action necessarily
disadvantages those who are not able to master these activities. Likewise, participants must be
well versed in Western democratic governance institutions to engage effectively in the process
(section 5.7.2). While findings, then, reaffirm the significance of communicative competence
for effective participation, participants were concerned with the implications of this prerequisite.
Using communicative action as a theoretical framework provides insight into opportunities for
public involvement in EA; the cases presented in this dissertation, in turn, inform empirical
literature surrounding communicative action.
7.2
Research Findings
Results from both case studies show that organizations can learn through participation in EA, a
second important contribution of this study. Following the organizational learning literature
(Argyris, 1993,1999; Argyris & Schon, 1978,1996; Bapuji & Crossan, 2004; Crossan, Lane, &
White, 1999; Huber, 1996), organizations consist of individuals. As these individuals acquire
knowledge potentially useful to an organization, it learns. As this knowledge is absorbed into
the organization to improve the organizations performance, organizational learning is said to
occur. A discussion of organizational learning, then, considers individual, policy-oriented and
organizational learning.
186
Individual, instrumental learning outcomes addressed scientific and technical advice, legal,
administrative and political procedures, biophysical, social and economic knowledge, and
follow-up (sections 4.7.1 and 5.7.1); these outcomes are modified from categories identified
through research conducted by Diduck and Mitchell (2003). While all categories of learning
were found in both cases, participants of the Wuskwatim projects identified more instrumental
outcomes. Instrumental outcomes identified by the participants of the Snap Lake project were
not always linked to participation in that specific assessment, but represented outcomes
associated with involvement in diamond-based development.
Policy-oriented learning addressed insight into the interest of others, and social mobilization
(sections 4.7.2 and 5.7.2). Again, these findings reflect categories identified by Diduck and
Mitchell (2003). Findings target intergovernmental relationships, social networks, and broad
policy change as aspects requiring change.
With respect to organizational learning, like Diduck and Mitchell (2003), actors identified
learning outcomes that address insight into ones own interest and communication strategies and
methods (section 6.1.4). Learning by state actors, including government and tribunals,
emphasized mechanisms designed to improve performance within existing structures, or single
loop learning. Public actors, however, identified more outcomes associated with changes to
their theory-in-use, designed to change the structure of the EA process, or double-loop
learning.
The discussion of learning supports the application of transformative learning as a framework
for considering broader social changes (sections 4.7.1 and 6.1.5). Although Diduck and
Mitchells (2003) categories were directed at recording individual learning, their categories were
derived from transformative learning. Learning outcomes associated with individuals, policyoriented learning and organizations mimic the categories developed to document individual
learning. All learning outcomes identified by participants in the two case studies were captured
in the discussion of instrumental and communicative learning; as the individual is the agent for
all broader social learning, individuals must learn before organizations learn. This finding is
significant because it supports the assertion that transformative learning provides a credible
framework for considering social change (Aalsburg Wiessner & Mezirow, 2000; Yorks &
Marsick, 2002). As such, it represents the third important contribution of this work.
187
In addressing multiple scales of change, however, each element is addressed in this research in a
perfunctory fashion. While this is appropriate for considering if organizational learning can
occur through participation in EA, future research should consider extending the depth of
analysis related to each element (see section 7.4). Earlier studies have considered individual
learning and the learning environment (Diduck & Mitchell, 2003; Fitzpatrick & Sinclair, 2003);
future research may focus specifically on the structures that channel organizational learning,
although continuing to draw on the theoretical framework based on communicative action.
7.2.1
What elements of individual, the learning environment, and the
organization contribute to organizational learning?

The comparative analysis confirms that a number of elements support learning through EA
(section 6.4). Establishing a shared learning agenda (Preskill & Torres, 1999; Shor, 1993) at the
start of the assessment focuses energy on regulative and representative issues, rather continuing
to discussion about scope (sections 4.4.2 and 5.4.2). This finding supports research by Petts
(2003) that identifies the framing of research issues as a key aspect of effective participation.
Findings also support the importance of alternative perspectives for learning (Mezirow, 1991;
Preskill & Torres, 1999; Shor, 1993). Access to multiple perspectives is achieved or inhibited
through a variety of activities, including multiple opportunities for engagement in the assessment
process (sections 4.4.1 and 5.4.1), a research-based approach to assessment intervention (section
4.5.2), active engagement by all actors in the policy community (sections 4.5.2 and 5.5.2), and
funded participation (section 4.5.2). These components support literature that suggests that
funding is important (Diduck & Mitchell, 2003; Lynn & Wathem, 1991; Palerm, 2000; Sinclair
& Diduck, in press; Webler, Kastenholz, & Renn, 1995), and adds to literature that suggests that
funding is necessaiy but insufficient for effective public involvement (Busenberg, 2001). In the
Wuskwatim case45, participants noted that funding should provide for testing of the proponents
impact statement, through new research or cross-examination.
Participants in both case studies supported the use and development of social networks to
participate in EA. In the EA of the Wuskwatim projects, NGO participants supported building
on Manitobas history of advocacy coalitions; Snap Lake participants identified the process as a
means of sharing ideas and perspectives. This discussion reflects a number of studies that
45 Recall that funding was not provided in the Snap Lake Case.
188
suggest that participation is strengthened through support from other stakeholders (Alexander,
1999; Busenberg, 2001; Krasny & Lee, 2002; Michaels, Mason, & Solecki, 2001; Poncelet,
2001).
Participant organizations have various systems for facilitating inquiry (Huber, 1996), including
mechanisms for distributing (section 6.1.1), interpreting (section 6.1.2), and recording data
(section 6.1.3). Organizations identified a variety of learning types associated with participation
in EA, including instrumental (sections 4.7.1 and 5.7.1), policy-oriented (sections 4.7.2 and
5.7.1) and organizational (section 6.1). As discussed above, examples of organizational learning
included both single-loop learning, directed at improving EA, and double-loop learning, directed
at changing the structure and focus of the assessment process (section 6.1.5).
The quality most conducive to learning was the interactive exchange of information encouraged
through EA (section 6.6.2). Most participants identified specific activities that emphasized
dialogue as a means of communication, including meetings and technical sessions. These
findings support Habermas (1984,1987) emphasis on dialogue as means of negotiating the
lifeworld. They also corroborate research that suggests that a face-to-face exchange is the most
productive method to develop public involvement (Innes, 1998; Webler et al., 1995).
7.2.2
What is the nature of the relationship between EA and learning?
The findings indicate that, from the perspective of participants, learning is significant to EA
(section 6.2). Learning serves a number of functions in the assessment process, including
strengthening future assessment processes and educating participants and the broader public.
These results triangulate assertions in the literature that learning is significant to EA because it
ensures that participants are aware of how to be engaged in the review, and have a basic
understanding of assessment issues (Diduck & Sinclair, 1997a, Fitzpatrick and Sinclair 2003).
It expands this set of functions to take a longitudinal perspective; learning is also significant
because it prepares participants for future assessment activities.
7.2.3
How does learning contribute to sustainable development?
The findings suggest that learning associated with participation in EA furthers the overarching
agenda of sustainable development (section 6.4). Learning contributes to human relations
designed to strengthen ecological processes. Learning associated with participation in EA
furthers Gibsons (2002) goals of [ecological and social] integrity, and democracy and civility.
189
The interactive focus of this approach supports the assertion that sustainable development
encourages and relies on communicative interaction among collective actors (O'Mahony &
Skillington, 1996). Findings provide empirical support for Wilkens (2003) claim that
sustainable development can be a product of the interactive opportunities of EA, and advances
the application of Gibsons (2001) criteria for guiding sustainable decisions. Furthermore,
results strengthen linkages noted in the literature suggesting that learning is necessary for
sustainable development (Leal Fihlo 2000, WCED 1987, Yorque et al. 2002) by illustrating that
at a minimum, learning contributes to social learning congruent with this goal.
7.3
Modifications to EA Processes
Ultimately, each EA is context specific. As such, participation in any given process will
necessarily suggest changes to strengthen the review process. Throughout this research,
participants recommended a number of procedural changes to improve EA. EA literature also
provides insight on how to strengthen the efficiency and effectiveness of public participation,
and increase opportunities for higher order learning for sustainability learning.
Recommendations for both processes, summarized in Table 7.1, are grouped as short-, mediumand long-term changes. Short-term changes are likely to face little opposition, and can be
implemented within the existing EA process. Medium-term changes may face increasing
opposition, but be still implemented within the existing EA process. Long-term changes may be
faced with strong opposition or require complex implementation challenges, such as revising the
assessment process.
190
Table 7.8: Recommendations to strengthen the EA processes.
CRITERIA
RECOMMENDATION
ACTOR
CHAPTER 4: THE EA OF THE WUSKWATIM PROJECTS
Short term changes
CEC
Undertake only one round of IRs
Situated
CEC
Integrate responses to the IRs in one final
Impact Statement, available electronically
Corporate
Actors
Vet IRs through the CEC or its staff, so as to
CEC
minimize duplication of efforts
Prepare a summary of key assessment issues
CEC
that clearly identifies the documentation trail
CEC
Have an independent party (e.g. the CEC)
prepare a summary paper of positions prior to
commencing hearings
CEC
Have an independent part (e.g. the CEC)
prepare an abstract of issues discussed during
the daily hearings
CEC
Provide translation services
Ensure funding contributes to the development Public
Argumentation
of new research or cross examination of the
Actors
proponents documentation
CEC
CEC
Develop a firm schedule for presentations
Critical
CEC
Schedule hearings for specific topics
CEC
Allow for a variety of hearing locations
Equity
CEC
Take steps to engage the general audience in
hearing
Medium-term changes
Government
Develop systems to actively demonstrate how
Desocializing
public involvement contributes to process
decisions
Government
Provide an additional opportunity for public
Participatory
CEC
review of EA guidelines if the process is
harmonized after the guidelines are issued
Government
Encourage active participation by government
Argumentation
CEC
departments
Government
Develop methods to inform and consult the
Situated
CEC
broader public beyond media coverage
Government
Create one central public registry
CEC
Modify assessment timelines to ensure that all
CEC
SECTION
4.5.1.3
4.5.1.3
4.5.1.3
4.5.1.3
4.5.1.4
4.5.1.4
4.5.1.4
4.5.2
4.6.1
4.6.1
4.6.2
4.6.2
6.4
4.4.2
4.5.2
4.5.1.1
4.5.1.2
4.5.1.3
Economic
requests are addressed
Ensure the public has access to documentation
Actors
CEC
Government
Economic
191
4.5.1.4
CRITERIA
RECOMMENDATION
ACTOR
CHAPTER 4: THE EA OF THE WUSKWATIM PROJECTS
Actors
Academic
Critical
Develop a publicly accessible, best practices
library.
Government
Provide additional resources for northern
Policy-oriented
learning
based organizations
CEC
Long-term changes
Government
Strengthen coordination of EAs between the
Critical
federal and provincial government
Improve interaction among existing policy
Policy-oriented
Public actors
Learning
coalitions
EA Qualities
Provide opportunities to resolve issues prior to CEC
the hearings
CRITERIA
Short - term
Situated
ACTOR
ACTION
CHAPTER 5: THE EA OF THE SNAP LAKE PROJECT
Clearly identify material located on the
public record and public registry
Develop a system to track assessment issues
Limit the IR process to one or two rounds
Create blocks of time for the IR process,
rather than date-focused deadlines
Develop a template for IRs
Reduce editing of IRs by the MVEIRB
Use technical sessions to resolve outstanding
issues
Prepare interim technical reports prior to
technical sessions
Facilitate outside breakout technical sessions
Record breakout sessions, and place minutes
on the public registry
Allow participants to edit technical summary
notes
Meet with Elders to discuss their needs prior
to arranging hearings
Medium-term
Situated
Long-term
Situated
Develop methods to inform and consult the

broader public beyond media coverage
Strengthen opportunities (e.g. meetings) to
narrow the scope prior to the technical
review
Provide resources for organizations to
SECTION
4,6,2
4.7.2
4.6.1
4.7.2
6.4
SECTION
MVEIRB
5.5.1.2
MVEIRB
MVEIRB
MVEIRB
5.5.1.2
5.5.1.3
5.5.1.3
MVEIRB
MVEIRB
MVEIRB
All
participants
All
participants
MVEIRB
MVEIRB
5.5.1.3
5.5.1.3
5.5.1.4
MVEIRB
5.5.1.4
MVEIRB
5.5.1.4
MVEIRB
Government
MVEIRB
5.5.1.1
Government
192
5.5.1.4
5.5.1.4
5.5.1.4
5.5.1.3, 6.4
5.5.1.3
CRITERIA
ACTION
ACTOR
CHAPTER 5: THE EA OF THE SNAP LAKE PROJECT
MVEIRB
participate in the IR process
Argumentation
Provide funding for participation in
Government
MVEIRB
environmental assessments
Government
Policy-oriented
Provide a venue to address broad
environmental issues
Learning
Improve
cross cultural relations
MVEIRB
........._
...
SECTION
5.5.2
5.7.2
5.7.2
7.4 Remembering the Context

Numerous limitations, including my theoretical perspective, research focus, case selection, and
the affiliation of participants, frame the contributions of my research. Individuals were
considered as the locus for organizational learning (section 2.4). Thus, the finding that
transformative learning could address broader social learning may have been unduly influenced
by this position.
The research focused on the assessment process, rather than the substantive dialogue
surrounding each case study. As such, the findings focus on how EA exemplifies the public
realm, rather than evaluating the material generated by each review.
Case selection was restricted to large-scale EA (section 3.1.1). Thus, these cases are neither
representative, nor exemplary of the majority of assessments, which are primarily conducted in
the absence of public involvement. As such, findings serve to illustrate the potential for, and
limitations of, public involvement in EA.
Corporate actors were predominately absent from the policy actors engaged in research-related
interviews. While data associated with corporate learning were available from documentation
related the EAs, participant observation and literature, findings are necessarily limited by the
lack of active involvement in this study by these key players.
7.5
Future Research Directions
As highlighted above, this research provides insight into the nature of organizational learning
arising from participation in EA, and the contribution of this learning to sustainable
development. Aspects of interest for future research arising from this study include:
193
research to test the utility of the theoretical framework for considering organizational
learning. Case studies should include other types of EA, including strategic and class
EA, and other interactive policy-making processes, such as round tables,
empirical studies to test the application of transformative learning to address social,

organizational and policy change. Research should be designed to test the assumption
that individuals are the agent of learning in organizations. Case studies could extend
beyond those related to natural resource management to other avenues of policy
development (e.g. health issues),
an analysis of the characteristics of organizations that contribute to different types of

learning. As observed in section 6.1.4, different actors identified different learning
outcomes associated with participation in EA. Future research should explore what
characteristics contributed to these different learning outcomes, considering both
procedural and substantive linkages,
an in-depth evaluation of the structures that facilitate organizational learning through

EA. While this research provided a survey of organization structures (information
distribution, interpretation and organizational memory) involved in organizational
learning, future research should provide in-depth analysis of each of these components
for each policy actor. Organizational learning literature traditionally focuses on
empirical evidence generated from a small number of actors (Bapuji & Crossan, 2004;
Easterby-Smith & Araujo, 1999); future research related to organizational learning
through EA should take this approach to provide robust data in each of these areas,
in-depth evaluation of the relationship between learning and sustainable development

related to both EA substance (e.g. need for and alternatives to) and process (e.g. early
scoping). In section 6.4, a preliminary analysis concluded that learning outcomes
associated with participation in EA are consistent with the principles of sustainability, as
achieved through some of the criteria identified by Gibson (2000). More research,
focused specifically on comparing learning outcomes against these criteria, is required,
exploration of the relationship between policy-oriented learning exhibited in EA and

policy change. Although this study included a preliminary review of policy-oriented
learning associated with participation in EA, research timelines prohibited a longitudinal
examination of the extent to which this learning affects change, either at the advocacy
coalition or the policy levels. Future research opportunities for organization learning
should include a more long-term perspective to identify if specific policy change can be
linked to learning through EA, and,
studies that explore if learning through EA results in substantive changes to

organizations. While the purpose of this research was to examine if organizations could
learn through EA, research timelines prohibited a longitudinal examination of the
impacts of learning outcomes on organizations. Additional studies are required to
indicate if learning outcomes associated with participation in EA impact organizational
behaviour.
7.6 Coudusion
The purpose of this research was to explore opportunities for learning through participation in
EA. By focusing narrowly on the regulatory EA processes, my findings exclude opportunities
for learning arising from activities surrounding the development of the impact statement by the
proponents, which included many opportunities for public engagement. By terminating the
analysis at the end of the EA, opportunities for learning through project construction, operation
(including monitoring) and decommissioning were also excluded. This life cycle approach to
project development and learning would provide more information about learning through EA.
However, constructing a research program based on a three year review process is appropriate in
that it illustrates how a large-scale EA, which necessarily includes a massive investment of
resources, is significant for organizational learning, learning that can contribute to sustainable
development.
195
APPENDIX 1 INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
When did your organization decide to become involved in the environmental assessment?
How did your organization approach participation in this process?
Prompts: [How did you coordinate your response to the assessment? For example, did
you meet with organization members?]
How did this EA fit into other activities your organization undertakes?
Prompts: [What kinds of activities do you do? Did you undertake activities associated
with the EA? How were the projects fimded? How were the projects staffed?]
Do you think the information discussed during the assessment was accurate and complete?
Prompts: [Were different ideas presented? Were these alternatives explored?]
Do you think you had enough time to consider the information presented in the EA? .. .during
the hearings?
Prompt: [Was participant funding used to aid in your review of the information
provided (e.g. did you hire an expert to review it)?Was participant funding used in any
other way to aid your participation?]
Do you think interested parties had an equal opportunity to participate?
Prompt: [Do you believe all arguments were considered by the board? Do you think
they were evaluated systematically?]
What part of the assessment process did you find most useful?
Prompt: [Developing the EIS, the IRs, the hearings]
Do you think that EA is a learning process?
What do you think you learned because of this EA?
Prompt: [Did you learn new things as a result of your involvement in the EA
(information about the project, the environment, government procedure)? Did your
organization change their approach to business as a result of the assessment process?
If so, how were these decisions reached?]
How does your organization bring those lessons into its organizational memory
Prompt: [Do you have mechanisms to record this learning for future EAs?]
196
What qualities of the assessment lend themselves to learning?

Prompt: [In your opinion, what was the most effective method through which you
learned about the project? About the EA process?
197
APPENDIX 2 DOCUMENTATION ACCESSED FROM PUBLIC REGISTRIES
Chapter 4
L. Strachan, personal communication, February 27, 2004. Correspondence from the Director o f
Environmental Approvals to the CEC. Available from the provincial public registry,
Main Street, Winnipeg, MB.
Chapter 5
Janet Hutchison, personal communication, September 17,2002. Letter to review Board
regarding rule #50, rules of procedure: Should staff reports and briefing notes be placed
on the public registry? Available from the MVEIRB public registry, volume 8, document
428.
Janet Hutchison, North Slave Mdtis Alliance, personal communication, March 14, 2003. De
Beers Snap Lake diamondproject environmental assessment. Available from the
MVEIRB public registry, volume 17, document 660.
Kris Johnson, personal communication, April 16, 2003. Submission o f preliminary and
jurisdictional issues. Available from the MVEIRB public registry, volume 19, document
778.
Kris Johnson, personal communication, May 15,2003. Regarding DeBeers Snap Lake EA
request for access to all information the Board uses to base its decision. Available from
the MVEIRB public registry, volume 22, document 894.
David Livingstone, personal communication, April 18, 2002. Fax outlining DIANDs concern
regarding the coordinated distribution of documents pertaining to this EA. Available
from the MVEIRB public registry, volume 6, document 232.
Lutsel Ke Dene First Nation, personal communication, August 27,2001. Comments on the
draft terms o f reference and work plan. Available from the MVEIRB public registry,
volume 4, document 114.
Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board, personal communication, May 23,2001. Reasonsfo r
referral o f the Snap Lake project to the MVEIRB. Available from the MVEIRB public
registry, volume 1, document 7.
MVEIRB, personal communication, July 21,2001. Draft minutes o f the July 20, 2001 meeting.
Available from the MVEIRB public registry, volume 2, document 64.
MVEIRB, personal communication, September 18,2001. Response to Lutsel Kes comments
on the draft terms of reference and work plan. Available from the MVEIRB public
registry, volume 4, document 124.
198
MVEIRB, personal communication, July 9,2003. Reasons for Decision on the NSMAs
application to adjourn the public hearing. Available from the MVEIRB public registry,
North Slave Mdtis Alliance, personal communication, April 9, 2003. De Beers Snap Lake
diamond project site visit. Available from the MVEIRB public registry, volume 19,
document 741.
Kevin OReilly, personal communication, July 5,2001. Kevin O'Reilly of CARC provides view
on government experts being appropriately identified and five questions about EA
process. Available from the MVEIRB public registry, volume 2, document 33.
Kevin OReilly, personal communication, July 20,2001. CARC comments on draft terms of
reference and draft work plan and draft rules of procedure. Available from the MVEIRB
public registry, volume 2, document 68.
Kevin OReilly, personal communication, August21,2001. CARC submission o f supporting
information for its requestfo r ruling. Available from the MVEIRB public registry,
volume 3, document 101
Chapter 6
J. Dahl, personal communication, April 23, 2003. Correspondence from the Department o f
Fisheries and Oceans to the MVEIRB. Available from the MVEIRB public registry,
199
REFERENCES
Aalsburg Wiessner, C., & Mezirow, J. D. (2000). Theory building and the search for common
ground. In J. D. Mezirow & Associates (Eds.), Learning as transformation: Critical
perspectives on a theory in progress (pp. 329-358). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Abelson, J., Forest, P.-G., Eyles, J., Smith, P., Martin, E., & Gauvin, F.-P. (2003). Deliberations
about deliberative methods: Issues in the design and evaluation of public participation
processes. Social Science and Medicine, 57(2003), 239-251.
Akkerman, T., Hajer, M., & Grin, J. (2004). The interactive state: Democratisation from above?
Political Studies, 52, 82-95.
Alexander, D. (1999). Planning as learning: Sustainability and the education of citizen activists.
Environments, 27(2), 79-87.
Alexander, E. (1996). After rationality: Towards a contingency theory for planning. In S.
Mandelbaum, L. Mazza & R. W. Burchell (Eds.), Exploration in planning theory (pp. 4564). New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers.
Annadale, D. (2000). Mining company approaches to environmental approvals regulation: A
survey of senior environmental managers in Canadian firms. Resources Policy, 26(1), 5159.
Annadale, D., & Taplin, R. (2003). Is environmental impact assessment regulation a burden' to
private firms? Environmental Impact Assessment and Review, 23(3), 387-397.
Argyris, C. (1993). On organizational learning, Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Business.
Argyris, C. (1999). On organizational learning. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Business.
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1978). Organizational learning, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method and practice. Don
Mills, ON: Wesley Publishing Company.
Amstein, S. (1969). Ladder of citizen participation. Journal o f the American Institute o f
Planners, 35(4) 216-224.
Ashbury, D. (2001, February 05). Snap goes for permits. Third diamond mine underway De
Beers plans full operation by 2004. Yellowknifer.
http://www.nnsl.com/frames/newspapers/2001 -02/feb5 01 dia.html. Accessed March 6,
2005
Bapuji, H., & Crossan, M. (2004). From questions to answers: Reviewing organizational
learning research. Management Learning, 55(4), 397-417.
Barry, J. (1996). Sustainability judgments and citizenship. In B. Doherty & M. de Geus (Eds.),
Democracy and green political thought: Sustainability, rights and citizenship (pp. 115131). New York: Routledge.
200
Barry, J. (1999). Environment and social theory. New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis
Group.
Benhabib, S. (1982). Modernity and the aproias of critical theory. Telos, 49, 38-59.
Benhabib, S. (1996). Toward a deliberative model of democratic legitimacy. In S. Benhabib
(Ed.), Democracy and difference: Contesting the boundaries o f the political (pp. 67-94).
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Bennett, C. J., & Howlett, M. (1992). The lessons of learning: Reconciling theories of policy
learning and policy change. Policy Studies, 25,275-294.
Bernard, H. R. (1994). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative
approach (Second ed.). Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press.
BHP Environmental Assessment Panel. (1996). NWT diamonds project report o f the
environmental assessment panel. Ottawa: Federal Environmental Assessment and Review
Office.
Blann, K., Light, S., & Musumeci, J. A. (2003). Facing the adaptive challenge: Practitioners'
insights from negotiating resource crises in Minnesota. In F. Berkes, J. Colding & C.
Folke (Eds.), Navigating social-ecological systems (pp. 210-240). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Boyd, D. R. (2003). Unnatural law: Rethinking Canadian environmental law and policy.
Vancouver, BC, Canada: UBC Press.
Brookfield, S. D. (2000). Transformative learning as ideology critique. In J. D. Mezirow &
Associates (Eds.), Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in
progress (pp. 125-150). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brown, S. R. (1991). Q-Methodology, Concourse theory. Retrieved January 12, 2005
Bruhn-Tysk, S., & Eklund, M. (2002). Environmental impact assessment - a tool for sustainable
development? A case study of biofuelled energy plants in Sweden. Environmental Impact
Assessment Review, 2 2 ,129-144.
Burnett, S. (2003, October 15). Minister lays down the law Nault: De Beers must deal on rough
diamonds. Yellowknifer. http://www.nnsl.com/frames/newsnapers/200310/octl5 03dial.html. Accessed March 6,2005.
Busenberg, G. J. (2000). Resources, Political Support, and Citizen Participation in
Environmental Policy: A reexamination of conventional wisdom. Society and Natural
Resources, 13, 579-587.
Canada -Manitoba Agreement on Environmental Assessment Cooperation. Government of
Canada and Manitoba Government (2000)
www.ceaa.gc.ca/010/0001/0003/001/003/manitoba_agr_e.htm.
Canada Wide Accord on Environmental Harmonization. Canadian Council of Ministers of the
Environment (1998) www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/accord_harmonization_e.pdf.
Canadian Institute of Resources Law. (1997). Independent review o f the BHP diamond mine
process. Hull, PQ.: Mineral Resources Directorate, Department of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development.
201
CBC North Snap Lake diamond hearings open. (2003, April 28). Yellowknife, NT, CA:
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
http://north.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View7filename-apr28snapreview04282003. Accessed
March 6,2005.
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, S.C. 1992, c.37.
Clean Environment Commission. (2002). Report to the Minister of Conservation on public
meetings: Draft environmental impact statement guidelines for the Wuskwatim generation
and transmission projects. Winnipeg, MB, Canada: Clean Environment Commission.
Clean Environment Commission (2003). Decision regarding the Pimicikamak Cree Nation
Motion Respecting The Wuskwatim Generation and Transmission Project. Winnipeg,
MB, Canada: Clean Environment Commission.
Clean Environment Commission (2003). Pre Trial Hearing Conference, Wuskwatim Generation
and Transmission Project. Winnipeg, MB, Canada: Clean Environment Commission.
Clean Environment Commission (2004). Wuskwatim Generation and Transmission Project,
Clean Environment Commission. Winnipeg, MB, Canada: Clean Environment
Commission.
Clean Environment Commission. (2004). Report on public hearings: Wuskwatim generation and
transmission line projects. Winnipeg, MB, Canada: Clean Environment Commission.
Clover, D. E. (2002). Toward transformative learning: Ecological perspectives for adult
education. In E. OSullivan, A. Morrell & M. A. O'Connor (Eds.), Expanding the
boundaries o f transformative learning: Essays on theories andpraxis (pp. 159-172). New
York: Palgrave.
Connelly, J., & Smith, G. (1999). Politics and the environment: From theory to practice. New
York: Routledge.
Cook, S. D. N., & Yanow, D. (1996). Culture and organizational learning. In M. D. Cohen & L.
S. Sproull (Eds.), Organizational learning (pp. 430-459). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Covington, C. R. (1985). Development of Organizational Memory in Presidential Agencies.
Administration and Society, 17(2), 171-196.
Cranton, P. (Ed.). (1997). Transformative learning in action: Insights from practice. (Vol. 74
(Summer)). San Fransico: Jossey-Bass.
Cranton, P. (1998). No one way: Teaching and learning in higher education. Toronto, ON,
Canada: Wall & Emmerson Inc.
Cranton, P. (2000). Individual differences and transformative learning. In J. D. Mezirow &
Cranton, P. (2002). Teaching for transformation. New directions for adult and continuing
education, 95(Spring), 63-71.
Crossan, M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. (1999). An organizational learning framework: From
intuition to institution. Academy o f Management Review, 24(3), 522-537.
202
Couch, W. (2002). Strategic resolution of policy, environmental and socio-economic impacts in

Canadian arctic diamond mining: BHPsNWT diamond project. Impact Assessment and
Project Appraisal, 20(4), 265-278.
Daft, R. L., & Huber, G. (1987). How organizations learn: A communication framework.
Research in the sociology o f organizations, 5 , 1-36.
De Beers Canada Inc. (2002). Environmental impact statement. Yellowknife, NT, CA: De Beers
Canada.
Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Department of Fisheries and Oceans,
& Natural Resources Canada. (1999). Diavik Diamonds Project Comprehensive Study.
Yellowknife: Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education.
New York: The MacMillan Company.
Diduck, A. P. (1995). Critical education for environmental assessment. Unpublished Masters
Thesis, Natural Resources Institute, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Diduck, A. P. (1999). Critical education in resource and environmental management: Learning
and empowerment for a sustainable future. Journal o f Environmental Management, 57,
85-97.
Diduck, A. P. (2001). Learning through public involvement in environmental assessment: A
transformative perspective. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Waterloo,
Waterloo, ON, Canada.
Diduck, A. P. (2004). Incorporating participatory approaches and social learning. In B. Mitchell
(Ed.), Resource and environmental management in Canada: Addressing conflict and
uncertainty (pp. 497-527). Toronto, ON, Canada: Oxford University Press.
Diduck, A. P., & Mitchell, B. (2003). Learning, public involvement and environmental
assessment: A Canadian case. Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 5(3),
339-364.
Diduck, A. P., Moyer, J., & Briscoe, E. (submitted). A social learning analysis of recent flood
management initiatives in the Red River basin, Canada. In D. Shrubsole & N. Watson
(Eds.), Sustaining ourfutures: Reflections on environment, economy and society.
Waterloo, ON, Canada: University of Waterloo.
Diduck, A. P., & Sinclair, A. J. (1997a). The concept of critical environmental assessment
education. The Canadian Geographer, 41(3), 294-307.
Diduck, A. P., & Sinclair, A. J. (1997b) Testing the Concept of Critical Environmental
Assessment (EA) Education. In A. J. Sinclair (Ed.), Canadian Environmental Assessment
in Transition (pp. 78-124). Waterloo, ON, Canada: Department of Geography.
Diduck, A. P., & Sinclair, A. J. (2002). Public Involvement in Environmental Assessment: the
case of the nonparticipant. Environmental Management, 29, 578-588.
Diduck, A. P., Sinclair, A. J., & Shymko, R. (2000, June 22-24, 2000). Congruence o f barriers
to public involvement in local climate change initiatives and environmental assessment
processess. Paper presented at the Climate Change Communication: Proceedings of an
International Conference, Waterloo, ON.
203
Dixon, N. (1994). The organizational learning cycle: How we can learn collectively. Toronto,
ON, Canada: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Dobson, A. (1996). Democratizing green theory: Preconditions and principles. In B. Doherty &
M. de Geus (Eds.), Democracy & Green Political Thought: sustainability, rights and
citizenship (pp. 132-148). New York: Routledge.
Dryzek, J. (1987). Discursive designs: Critical theory and political institutions. American
Journal o f Political Sciences, 31(3), 656-679.
Dryzek, J. (1990). Discursive democracy: Politics, policy and political science. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Dryzek, J. (1990). Green Reason; Communicative ethics for the biosphere. Environmental
Ethics, 12(3), 195-210.
Dryzek, J., & List, C. (2003). Social choice theory and deliberative democracy: A reconciliation.
British Journal o f Political Science, 3 3 ,1-28.
Duhaime, L. (2004). Duhaime law on-line legal dictionary. Retrieved February 15, 2005, from
www.duhaime.org
Easterby-Smith, M., Antonacopoulou, E., Simm, D., & Lyles, M. (2004). Constructing
contributions to organizational learning. Management Learning, 35(4), 370-381.
Easterby-Smith, M., & Araujo, L. (1999). Organizational learning: Current debates and
opportunities. In M. Easterby-Smith, L. Araujo & J. Burgoyne (Eds.), Organizational
learning and the learning organization: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 1-21).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Eckersley, R. (1992). Environmentalism andpolitical theory: Toward an ecocentric approach.
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Enslin, P., Pendlebury, S., & Tjiattas, M. (2001). Deliberative democracy, diversity and the
challenges of citizenship education. Journal o f Philosophy Education, 35(1), 115-130.
Environment Act, C.C.S.M. 1987, C.E125.
Environmental Assessment and Review Process Guidelines Order, S.O.R./84-467.
Fallding, H. (2004, April 8). Hydro study 'sloppy', environmentalist says. The Winnipeg Free
Press, www.winnipegffeenress.com. Accessed April 8,2004.
Farrell, A., Van Deveer, S. D., & Jager, J. (2001). Environmental assessments: Four underappreciated elements of design. Global Environmental Change, 11, 311-333.
Finger, M., & Asun, J. M. (2001). Adult education at the crossroads. Learning our way out.
New York: Zed Books.
Finger, M., & Burgen Brand, S. (1999). The concept of the 'learning organization' applied to the
transformation of the public sector: Conceptual contributions for theory development. In
M. Easterby-Smith, L. Araujo & J. Burgoyne (Eds.), Organizational learning and the
learning organization: developments in theory and practice (pp. 130-156). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Fiorino, D. J. (1989). Environmental risk and democratic process: A critical review. Columbia
Journal o f Environmental Law, 14(2), 501-547.
204
Fitzpatrick, P. (2001). The Role o f Critical Education in a Panel that Includes Hearings.
Unpublished Masters Thesis, Natural Resources Institute, University of Manitoba,
Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Fitzpatrick, P. (submitted). Complexity, governance and Canada's diamond mines. In M.
Howlett & K. Brownsey (Eds.), The new staple state: Political economy and public policy
regimes in Canada's primary industries. Vancouver, Canada: University of British
Columbia Press.
Fitzpatrick, P., & Sinclair, A. J. (2003). Learning through public involvement in environmental
assessment hearings. Journal o f Environmental Management, 67(2), 161-174.
Fitzpatrick, P., & Sinclair, A. J. (in press). Multi-jurisdictional environmental assessment. In K.
Hanna (Ed.), Environmental impact assessment: Process andpractice (pp. 161-174).
Toronto, ON, Canada: Oxford University press.
Flyvberg, B. (1998). Habermas and Foucault: Thinkers for civil society? British Journal o f
Sociology, 49(2), 210-233.
Forester, J. (1989). Planning in the face o f power. Berkley, CA: University of California Press.
Forester, J (1999) The deliberative practitioner: Encouraging participatory planning processes.
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Foucault, M. (1988). The ethic of care for the self as a practice of freedom. In J. Bemauer & D.
Rasmussen (Eds.), The Final Foucault (pp. 1-20). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Fraser, N. (1994). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually
existing democracy. In H. A. Giroux & P. McLaren (Eds.), Between borders: Pedagogy
and the politics o f culture (pp. 74-98). New York.
Freire, P. (1973). Pedagogy o f the oppressed. New York: The Seabury Press.
Gibson, R. B. (2000). Favouring the higher test: Contributions to sustainability as the central
criterion for reviews and decisions under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
Journal o f Environmental Law and Practice, 10(\), 39-56.
Gibson, R. B. (2001). The Major Deficiencies Remain: a review of the provisions and limitations
of Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Journal o f
Environmental Law and Practice, l l ( 1), 83-103.
Gibson, R. B. (2002). Specification of sustainability-based environmental decision criteria and
implications for determining 'significance' in environmental assessment. Ottawa, ON,
Canada: Research and Development Monograph Series, Canadian Environmental
Assessment Agency.
Grabove, V. (1997). The many facets of transformative learning theory. New Directions for
Adult and Continuing Education, 74 (Summer), 89-96.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K.
Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook o f qualitative research (pp. 105-117). London:
Sage Publications.
Habermas, J. (1984). The theory o f communicative action: Reason and the rationalization o f
society (T. McCarthy, Trans. Vol. One). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
205
Habermas, J. (1987). The theory o f communicative action: Lifeworld and systems (T. McCarthy,
Trans. Vol. 2). Boston: Beacon Press.
Habermas, J. (1999). Between facts and norms: Contributing to a discourse theory of law and
democracy (W. Rehg, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Haland, W. (1999). On Needs: A central concept in the Brundtland report. In W. M. Lafferty &
O. Langhelle (Eds.), Towards sustainable development: On the goals o f development and
the conditions o f sustainability (pp. 48). New York: St. Martin's Press Inc.
Hanna, K. (2000). The paradox of participation and the hidden role of information: A case study.
Journal o f the American Planning Association, 66(4), 398-410.
Hanna, K. (2005). Planning for sustainability: Experiences in two contrasting communities.
Journal o f the American Planning Association, 77(1), 27-40.
Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies. Vancouver,
Canada: University of British Columbia Press.
Heclo, H. (1974). Modem social politics in Britain and Sweden: From relief to income
maintenance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Hessing, M., & Howlett, M. (1997). Canadian natural resource and environmental policy.
Vancouver, Canada: University of British Columbia Press.
Hillier, J. (2003). Agonizing over consensus: Why Habermasian ideals cannot be 'real'. Planning
Theory, 2(1), 37-39.
Hoberg, G. (2001). Policy cycles and policy regimes: A framework for studying policy change.
In B. Cashmore, G. Hoberg, M. Howlett, J. Rayner & J. Wilson (Eds.), In search o f
sustainability: British Columbiaforest policy in the 1990s (pp. 3-30). Toronto, ON,
Canada: University of British Columbia Press.
Howlett, M. (2001). Policy venues, policy spillovers and policy change: The courts, aboriginal
rights, and British Columbia forest policy. In B. Cashore, G. Hoberg, M. Howlett, J.
Rayner & J. Wilson (Eds.), In search o f sustainability: British Columbia forest policy in
the 1990s (pp. 120-139). Toronto, ON, Canada: University of British Columbia Press.
Huber, G. P. (1996). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literature. In
M. D. Cohen & L. S, Sproull (Eds.), Organizational learning (pp. 124-162). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hungerford, H. R., & Volk, T. L. (1990). Changing learner behavior through environmental
education. Journal o f Environmental Education, 27(3), 8-21.
Innes, J. E. (1998). Information in communicative planning. Journal o f the American Planning
Association, 64(Winter), 52-63.
Innes, J. E. (2004). Consensus building clarifications for the critics. Planning Theory, 3(1), 5-20.
Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (1999). Consensus building and complex adaptive systems: A
framework for evaluating collaborative planning. Journal o f the American Planning
Association, 65(4), 412-423.
Jaeger, C. C., Renn, O., Rosa, E. A., & Webler, T. (2001). Risk, uncertainty, and rational action.
Sterling, VA: Earthscan.
206
Jenkins-Smith, H. C., & Sabatier, P. A. (1993). The dynamics of policy-oriented learning. In P.

A. Sabatier & H. C. Jenkins-Smith (Eds.), Policy change and learning: An advocacy
coalition approach (pp. 41-56). Boulder CO.: Westview Press.
Jenkins-Smith, H. C., & Sabatier, P. A. (1993). The study of public policy processes. In P. A.
Sabatier & H. C. Jenkins-Smith (Eds.), Policy change and learning: An advocacy
coalition approach (pp. 1-9). Boulder CO.: Westview Press.
Kapoor, I. (2001). Towards participatory environmental management? Journal o f Environmental
Management, 63,269-279.
Krasny, M. E., & Lee, S.-K. (2002). Social learning as an approach to environmental education:
Lessons from a program focusing on non-Indigenous invasive species. Environmental
Education Research, 8(2), 101-119.
Larcombe, P. M. (1995). The northern flood agreement: Implementation of land, resource and
environmental regimes in a treaty area. Ottawa: Royal Commission on Aboriginal
Peoples.
Leal Filho, W. (2000). Moving forward. In W. Leal Filho (Ed.), Communicating sustainability
(Vol. 8, pp. 475-480). New York: Peter Long.
Lee, K. N. (1998). The Columbia river basin: Experimenting with sustainability. In J. Dryzek &
D. Scholosberg (Eds.), Debating the earth: The environmental politics reader (pp. 96109). New York: Oxford University Press.
Lertzman, K., Rayner, J., & Wilson, J. (1996). Learning and change in the British Columbia
forest policy sector: A consideration of Sabatier's advocacy coalition framework.
Canadian Journal o f Political Science, 29(1), 111-133.
Lynn, S., & Wathem, P. (1991). Intervenor Funding in Environmental Assessment Processes in
Canada. Project Appraisal, 6(3), 169(165).
Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board. (1999). Views on the Diavik diamonds
project comprehensive study report. Yellowknife, NT, CA: Mackenzie Valley
Environmental Impact Review Board.
Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board. (2001). Terms o f reference and
workplan for the environmental assessment o f the De Beers Canada Inc. Snap Lake
diamond project. Yellowknife, NT, CA: Mackenzie Valley Impact Review Board.
Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board. (2003a). Report o f environmental
assessment and reasons fo r decision on the De Beers Canada Inc. Snap Lake diamond
project. Yellowknife, NT, Canada: Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review
Board.
Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board (2003b). Snap Lake Project
Transcripts. Yellowknife, NT, CA: Mackenzie Valley Impact Review Board.
Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board. (2004). Environmental Impact
Assessment Guidelines. Yellowknife, NT, CA: Mackenzie Valley Impact Review Board.
Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board. (2005). Lessons learnedform the
MVEIRB's Snap Lake Environmental Assessment Process. Yellowknife, NT, CA:
Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board.
207
Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, S.C. 1998, c.25.

Manitoba Conservation. (2002a). Consultation on draft guidelines for the preparation of the
environmental impact statement: What you told us. Winnipeg, MB, Canada: Manitoba
Conservation.
Manitoba Conservation. (2002b). Final guidelines for the preparation of the environmental
impact statement. Winnipeg, MB, Canada: Manitoba Conservation.
Manitoba Hydro, (circa 2002). A history o f electric power in Manitoba. Winnipeg, MB, Canada:
Manitoba Hydro.
Manitoba Hydro, & Nisichawayasihk CreeNation. (2003). Wuskwatim generation and
transmission projects: Environmental impact statement. Winnipeg, MB, Canada:
Manitoba Hydro & Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation.
Manitoba Hydro, & Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation. (2003). Wuskwatim generation and
transmission projects: Integrated executive summary o f environmental impact statements.
Winnipeg, MB, Canada: Manitoba Hydro & Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation.
McDonald, B. (1999). From pedagogy to ecogogy: Integrating adult learning, education and
ecosystem management. In H. K. Cordell & J. C. Bergstrom (Eds.), Integrating social
science and ecosystem management: Human dimensions in assessment, policy and
management {pp. 161-179). Champaign, IL: Sagamon.
McDonald, B., Cervero, R. M., & Courtenay, B. C. (1999). An ecological perspective of power
in transformational learning: A case study of ethical vegans. Adult Education Quarterly,
50(1), 5-23.
McGregor, D. (1999). Indigenous knowledge in Canada: Shifting paradigms and the influence o f
First Nations. Paper presented at the Sustainable Forest Management Network Conference
Science and practice: Sustaining the boreal forest, Edmonton, AB.
McGuirk, P. M. (2001). Situating communicative planning theory: Context, power and
knowledge. Environment and Planning A, 33, 195-217.
Mebratu, D. (1998). Sustainability and sustainable development: Historical and conceptual
review. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 18, 493-520.
Meredith, T. C. (1997). Information limitations in participatory impact assessment. In A. J.
Sinclair (Ed.), Canadian Environmental Assessment in Transition {pp. 125-154).
Waterloo, ON, Canada: Department of Geography, University of Waterloo.
Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study: Applications in education. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Merriam, S. B., & Caffarella, R. S. (1999). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide
(Second ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S. B., & Mohamad, M. (2000). How cultural values shape learning in older adulthood:
The case of Malaysia. Adult Education Quarterly, 51{1), 45-63.
Mezirow, J. D. (1991). Transformative dimensions o f adult learning. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
208
Mezirow, J. D. (1996). Contemporary paradigms of learning. Adult Education Quarterly, 46(3),

158-173.
Mezirow, J. D. & Associates (Eds.) (1990). Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: A guide to
transformative and emancipatory learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. D., & Associates (Eds.). (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives
on a theory in progress. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Michaels, S., Mason, R. J., & Solecki, W. D. (2001). Participatory research on collaborative
environmental management: Results from Adirondak Park. Society and Natural
Resources, 14, 251-255.
Mitchell, B. (2002). Resource and environmental management (2nd ed.). Essex, England:
Longman, Pearson Education Limited.
Molnar, E., & Mulvihill, P. R. (2003). Sustainability-Focused Organizational Learning: Recent
experiences and new challenges. Journal o f Environmental Planning and Management,
46(2), 167-176.
Morrow, R. A., & Torres, C. A. (2002). Reading Freire and Habermas: Critical pedagogy and
transformative social change. New York: Teachers College Press.
National Energy Board. (1996). National Energy Board Rules o f Practice and Procedure.
Calgary: National Energy Board.
NCN Says Evidence Supports Case for Wuskwatim. (2004, March 24). Grassroots News. Pp.
Al-2.
Neuman, L. (2000). Social science research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches
(Fourth ed. ed.). Toronto, ON, Canada: Allyan and Bacon Publishers.
O'Mahony, P., & Skillington, T. (1996). Sustainable development as an organizing principle for
discursive democracy? Sustainable Development, 4 ,42-51.
O'Reilly, K. (1996, June 21). Critique of the BHP environmental assessment: Purpose, structure
and process. Northern Perspectives, 24, unknown.
O'Reilly, K. (1998). The BHP Independent Environmental Monitoring Agency as a management
tool. Yellowknife, NWT: Canadian Arctic Resources Committee.
Orr, D. (1992). Ecological literacy: Education and the transition to a postmodern world. Albany,
NY: State University of New York Press.
Ortenblad, A. (2001). On differences between organizational learning and learning organization.
The learning organization, 8(3), 125-133.
O'Sullivan, E., Morrell, A., & O'Connor, M. A. (Eds.). (2002). Expanding the boundaries o f
transformative learning: Essays on theories and praxis. New York: Palgrave.
O'Sullivan, E., & Taylor, M. (2004). Introduction: Conundrum, challenge and choice. In E.
O'Sullivan & M. Taylor (Eds.), Learning toward an ecological consciousness (pp. 1-5).
New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Palerm, J. R. (2000). An empirical-theoretical analysis framework for public participation in
environmental impact assessment. Journal o f Environmental Planning and Management,
43(5), 581-600.
209
Palmer, J. (1998). Environmental education in the 21st century : Theory, practice, progress and
promise. New York: Routledge.
Parenteau, R. (1988). Public participation in environmental decision-making. Ottawa, ON,
Canada: Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office.
Passerin d'Entreves, M. (1997). Introduction. In M. Passerin d'Entreves & S. Benhabib (Eds.),
Habermas and the unfinished project o f modernity (pp. 1-37). Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Pettit, P. (2001). Deliberative democracy and the discursive dilemma. Philosophical Issues, 11,
268-299.
Petts, J. (1999). Public participation and environmental impact assessment. In J. Petts (Ed.),
Handbook o f environmental impact assessment: Environmental impact assessment:
process, methods andpractice (Vol. 1, pp. 145-177). Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell
Science.
Petts, J. (2003). Barriers to deliberative participation in EIA: Learning from waste policies,
plans and projects. Journal o f Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 5(3),
269-293.
Pezzoli, K. (1997). Sustainable development: A transdisciplanary overview of the literature.
Journal o f Environmental Planning and Management, 40(5), 549-574.
Ploger, J. (2001). Public participation and the art of governance. Environment and Planning B:
Planning and Design, 2 8 ,219-241.
Poncelet, E. C. (2001). Personal transformation in multistakeholder environmental partnerships.
Policy Sciences, 34, 273-301.
Praxis. (1988). Identification o f stakeholders. Calgary, AB, Canada: Praxis.
Preskill, H., & Torres, R. T. (1999). Evaluative inquiry for learning in organizations. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
QSR. (1999-2002). QSRNvivo (Version 2.0.163). Melbourne: Qualitative Solution Research
Limited.
Renn, O., Webler, T., & Wiedemann, P. (1995). A need for discourse on citizen participation:
Objectives and structure of the book. In O. Renn, T. Webler & P. Wiedemann (Eds.),
Fairness and competence in citizen participation: Evaluating models for environmental
discourse (pp. 1-16). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Robinson, V. M. J. (2001). Descriptive and normative research on organizational learning:
Locating the contribution of Argyris and Schon. The International Journal o f Educational
Management, 15(2), 58-67.
Rocha, E. M. (1997). A ladder of empowerment. Journal o f Planning Education and Research,
17, 31-44.
Romme, G., & Dillen, R. (1997). Mapping the landscape of organizational learning. European
Management Journal, 15(1), 68-78.
Rossini, F. A., & Porter, A. L. (1981). Interdisciplinary research: Performance and policy issues.
SRA Journal, 8-23.
210
Royal Commission on Aboriginal People. (1996). Report o f the Royal Commission on

Aboriginal People: Looking forward, looking back. Ottawa, ON, Canada: Royal
Commission on Aboriginal People.
Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (Eds.). (1993). Policy change and learning: An advocacy
coalition approach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Sabatier, P. A. (1993). Policy change over a decade or more. In P. A. Sabatier & H. C. JenkinsSmith (Eds.), Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach (pp. 13-39).
Boulder CO: Westview Press.
Sadar, H. (1996). Environmental impact assessment (2nd ed. ed.). Ottawa, ON, Canada: Carelton
University Press.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization.
Toronto, ON, Canada: Doubleday Currency.
Shilling, R. (2002). Journey of our spirits: Challenges for adult indigenous learners. In E.
O'Sullivan, A. Morrell & M. A. O'Connor (Eds.), Expanding the boundaries of
transformative learning: Essays on theories and praxis (pp. 151-158). New York:
Palgrave.
Shor, I. (1993). Education is politics: Paulo Freire's critical pedagogy. In P. McLaren & P.
Leonard (Eds.), Paulo Freire: A critical encounter (pp. 25-35). New York: Routledge.
Simpson, L. (1999). The construction o f traditional ecological knowledge: Insights, issues and
implications. University of Manitoba, Winnipeg.
Simpson, L. (2000). Anishinaabe ways of knowing. In J. Oakes, R. Riewe, S. Koolage, L.
Simpson & N. Schuster (Eds.), Aboriginal health, identity and resources (pp. 165-185).
Winnipeg: Department of Native Studies and Zoology, Faculty of Graduate Studies,
University of Manitoba.
Simpson, L. (2000). Indigenous knowledge and western science: Towards new relationships for
change. In J. Oakes, R. Riewe, S. Koolage, L. Simpson & N. Schuster (Eds.), Aboriginal
health, identity and resources (pp. 186-195). Winnipeg, MB, Canada: Department of
Native Studies and Zoology, Faculty of Graduate Studies, University of Manitoba.
Sinclair, A. J., & Diduck, A. P. (1995). Public education: An undervalued component of the
environmental assessment public involvement process. Environmental Impact Assessment
Review, 15, 219-240.
Sinclair, A. J., & Diduck, A. P. (2000). Public involvement in environmental impact assessment:
A case study of Hydro development in Kullu District, Himachal Pradesh, India. Impact
Assessment and Project Appraisal, 18(1), 63-75.
Sinclair, A. J., & Diduck, A. P. (2001). Public involvement in E.A. in Canada: A transformative
learning perspective. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 2/(2001), 113-136.
Sinclair, A. J., & Diduck, A. P. (in press). Public involvement in Canadian environmental
assessment: Enduring challenges and future directions. In K. Hanna (Ed.), Environmental
impact assessment: Process and practice. Toronto, ON, Canada: Oxford University
Press.
Sinclair, A. J., Diduck, A. P., & Fitzpatrick, P. (2002). Public hearings in environmental
assessment: Towards a civics approach. Environments, 30(1), 17-36.
211
Sinclair, A. J., & Doelle, M. (2003). Using law as a tool to ensure meaningful public
participation in environmental assessment. Journal o f Environmental Law and Practice,
12(1), 27-54.
Sinclair, A. J., & Fitzpatrick, P. (2002). Provisions for more meaningful public participation still
elusive in proposed new Canadian EA bill. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal,
20(3), 161-176.
Skollerhom, E. (1998). Habermas and nature: The theory of communicative action for studying
environmental policy. Journal o f Environmental Planning and Management, 41(5), 555573.
Smith, L. G. (1982). Mechanisms for public participation at a normative planning level in
Canada. Canadian Public Policy, 8(4), 561-572.
Stake, R. E. (1994). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The handbook o f
qualitative research (pp. 236-261). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Stone, D. (2000). Non-governmental policy transfer: The strategies of independent policy
institutes. Governance: An International Journal o f Policy and Administration, 13(1), 4562.
Sullivan, D. (2001, June 18). De Beers review set. Yellowknifer.
http://www.nnsl.com/frames/newsDapers/2001 -06/iun 18 01 dia.html. Accessed march 6,
2005.
Susskind, L., & Cruikshank, J. (1987). Breaking the impasse: Consensual approaches to
resolving public disputes. New York: Basic Books.
Tansey, J. (2002). Sustainable development: History, meaning and dilemmas. In Unpublished
manuscript.
Taylor, E. W. (1997). Building upon the theoretical debate: A critical review of the empirical
studies of Mezirow's transformative learning theory. Adult Education Quarterly, 45(1), 34
(26 p).
Taylor, E. W. (2000). Analyzing research on transformative learning theory. In J. D. Mezirow &

Taylor, K. (2000). Teaching with developmental intention. In J. D. Mezirow & Associates
(Eds.), Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress (pp.
151-180). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Taylor, K., Marienau, C., & Fiddler, M. (2000). Developing adult learners: Strategies for
teachers and trainers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Templeton, G., Lewis, B. R., & Snyder, C. A. (2002). Development of a measure for the
organizational learning construct. Journal o f Management Information Systems, 19(2),
175-218.
Templeton, G., Morris, S. A., Snyder, C., & Lewis, B. R. (2004). Methodological and thematic
prescriptions for defining and measuring the organizational learning concept. Information
System Frontiers, 6(3), 263-276.
212
Torrie, R, D., Torrie Smith Associates, & Time to Respect Earth's Ecosystems Resource
Conservation Manitoba. (2004). Alternatives to the advance o f the Wuskwatim generation
station: Substantive filing. Winnipeg, MB, CA: Time to Respect Earths Ecosystems &
Resource Conservation Manitoba.
Tuler, S., Webler, T., Shockey, I., & Stem, P. C. (2002). Factors influencing the participation of
local government officials in the national estuary program. Coastal Management, 3 0 ,101120.
Usher, P. J. (2000). Traditional ecological knowledge in environmental assessment and

management. Arctic, 53(2), 183-193.
Waldram, J. B. (1988). As long as the river runs: Hydroelectric development and native
communities in Western Canada. Winnipeg: The University of Manitoba Press.
Walsh, J. P., & Ungson, G. R. (1991). Organizational Memory. Academy o f Management
Review, 76(1), 57-91.
Ward, H., Norval, A., Landman, T., & Pretty, J. (2003). Open citizens'juries and the politics of
sustainability. Political Studies, 51, 282-299.
WCED. (1987). Our common future. New York: World Commission on Environment and
Development.
Webler, T. (1995). 'Right' discourse in citizen participation: An evaluative yardstick. In O. Renn,
T. Webler & P. Wiedemann (Eds.), Fairness and competence in citizen participation:
Evaluating models fo r environmental discourse (pp. 35-86). Dordrecht, the Netherlands:
Kluwer Academic.
Webler, T., Kastenholz, H., & Renn, O. (1995). Public participation in impact assessment: A
social learning perspective. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 15, 443-463.
Webler, T., & Renn, O. (1995). A brief primer on participation: Philosophy and practice. In O.
Renn, T. Webler & P. Wiedemann (Eds.), Fairness and competence in citizen
participation: Evaluating models for environmental discourse (pp. 17-34). Dordrecht, the
Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Webler, T., Seth, T., & Kruger, R. (2001). What is a good public participation process? Five
perspectives from the public. Environmental Management, 27(3), 435-450.
Webler, T., & Tuler, S. (2000). Fairness and competence in citizen participation: Theoretical
reflections from a case study. Administration and Society, 32(5), 566-595.
Welton, M. (2001). Civil society and the public sphere: Habermas's recent learning theory.
Studies in the Education o f Adults, 33(1), 20-34.
Wilkins, H. (2003). The need for subjectivity in EIA: Discourse as a tool for sustainable
development. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 23, 401-414.
Wilson, J. (2002). Continuity and change in the Canadian environmental movement: Assessing
the effects of institutionalization. In D. L. VanNijnatten & R. Boardman (Eds.), Canadian
environmental policy: Context and cases (pp. 46-65). Don Mills, ON, CA: Oxford
University Press.
Winnipeg Free Press Information. (2005). Retrieved February 9, 2005, from
http://www.winnipegffeepress.com/info/history/index.html
213
Wood, C. (1995). Environmental impact assessment: A comparative review. Essex, United

Kingdom: Longman Scientific and Technical.
Wuskwatim raises ghosts of dam development. (2004, February 24). On Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation. Winnipeg, MB, CA.
h1.1p://winnipeg.cbc.ca/regional/scrvlet/View?filename=mb wuskwatim20040224.
Accessed March 6,2005.
Yin, R. K. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Publications.
York, G. (1990). The dispossessed: Life and death in Native Canada. London: Vintage YK.
Yorks, L., & Marsick, V. J. (2000). Organizational learning and transformation. In J. D.
Mezirow & Associates (Eds.), Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a
theory in progress (pp. 253-284). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Yorque, R., Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Gunderson, L. H., Folke, C., Carpenter, S. R., et al.
(2002). Toward an integrative synthesis. In L. H. Gunderson & C. S. Holling (Eds.),
Panarchy: Understanding transformations in human and natural systems (pp. 419-438).
Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
214

In It Together

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

In It Together

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

NOTE TO USERS

This reproduction is the best copy available.

Waterloo, Ontario, Canada 2005

Patricia Fitzpatrick 2005

395 W ellington Street

395, rue W ellington

The author retains copyright

L'auteur conserve la propriete du droit d'auteur

In compliance with the Canadian

Conformement a la loi canadienne

While these forms may be included

Bien que ces formulaires

Copyright to be printed with the map or in an acknowledgements section

These maps were taken from the Atlas of Canada, http://atlas.gc.ca

including government and tribunals, emphasized mechanisms designed to improve performance

Oh, I have slipped the surly bonds of earth

Whatever rose towards the light is left to sink unnamed: a shape

Letter of Per m issio n ........................................................................................................................... iii

Chapter 5: The Snap Lake D iamonds Pro jec t ........................................................................107

Canadian Arctic Resources Committee

Cumulative effects assessment

Canadian Environmental Assessment Act

Clean Environment Commission

Diavik Diamonds Mines Inc

Department o f Fisheries and Oceans

Environmental impact statement

Indian Affairs and Northern Development Canada

Ideal speech situation

Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board

Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act

Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation

Natural Resources Canada

Project administration team (Manitoba)

Public Utilities Board (Manitoba)

West Kitikmeot Slave Society

FRAMING THE RESEARCH

In this research, I explore the linkages among sustainable development, environmental

hypothesizes about the utility of transformative learning as a model for promoting

reviews opportunities for individual learning through participation in EA (Diduck,

considers the implications of social learning through interactive policy-making

My research examines opportunities for organizational learning that emerge through

document the nature of the relationship between EA and learning, and

provide a preliminary analysis of how EA-related learning contributes to sustainable

Significance of the research

Structure of the dissertation

SETTING THE CONTEXT

According to Habermas (1984,1987), in the process of modernization, instrumental-technical

A landfill is a site where

The landfill over in

Operation of the landfill

I am concerned that the

all participants must have an equal chance to engage in speech acts;

all participants must have an equal opportunity to engage in regulative

which is evaluated based on its trustworthiness; and,

Empirical support for this function is found in recent research exploring

negotiate discourse centred on lifeworld activities. As applied in discursive democracy and

environment, sustainable development is conceptualized within an anthropocentric perspective.

The development of institutional structures that promote inter-actor dialogue on a long-term

As noted in Chapter 1, EA is a proactive planning tool that allows developers, regulatory

participation during normative and strategic planning activities (Smith, 1982),

barriers to deliberative participation (Diduck, Moyer, & Briscoe, submitted; Petts,

impact of public participation on decision making (Sinclair & Fitzpatrick, 2002).

Education and learning

Transformative learning is a framework of adult development and a derivative concept of adult