TA Comparative Analysis and Reflections on the CEAA and CEAA 2012

TA Comparative Analysis and Reflections on the CEAA and CEAA 2012
Student Name
Program Name or Degree Name (e.g., Master of Science in Nursing), Walden University
COURSE XXX: Title of Course
Instructor Name
Month XX, 202X
TA Comparative Analysis and Reflections on the CEAA and CEAA 2012
Introduction
For many years, Canada enjoyed a positive reputation in international circles because it protected the environment. However, according to Kirchhoff, Gardner, & Tsuji (2013, p. 3), this reputation is no longer warranted. Recent signs show that the federal government has downsized its expenditures in environmental protection through the changes realized in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act of 2012. The act suggests that the Canadian government is more focused on economic growth through the rapid exploitation of resources at the expense of the environment (2014). As a result, industries stand to gain more than the public. The current paper compares CEAA and CEAA 2012 to determine the changes and their implications.
Narration
According to Doelle (2012), the changes in the CEAA touch on core issues:
* Public participation in environmental issues,
* The process,
* Scope, and
* The roles of federal and provincial governments.
Proof
Federal and Provincial Participation
When the Canadian Constitution Act came into place in 1867, there was no mention of the environment. As a result, environmental responsibility was shared between the provincial and federal governments (Kirchhoff, Gardner, & Tsuji, 2013, p. 3). CEAA 1995 was designed based on the idea that federal decision-makers were to consider environmental implications of projects through a flexible screening process. According to Doelle (2012), the screening process involved multiple agencies, which meant hundreds of federal decision-makers. However, this number is reduced to three agencies in CEAA 2012: the National Energy Board (NEB), the Canadian Nuclear Commission (CNSC), and the Environmental Assessment Agency (EAA). As a result, under the CEAA 2012, the federal process does not apply to a provincial process. As a result, provincial government decision-makers are bound to be overlooked because the federal government, with the increased centralization, can pick one jurisdiction to carry out an EA process without the involvement of local governments.
Process
Doelle (2012) comments that the CEAA 1995 has four basic process options: screening, comprehensive studies, mediation, and panel reviews. The first two were alternative forms of self-assessment. Panel reviews and mediation could either follow or replace the first two. In contrast, the CEAA 2012 reduced these processes into two options: the standard environmental assessment and the panel review option (Gibson, 2012). Consequently, the mediation and comprehensive studies have been eliminated, making it easy for industries and investors to pursue projects without much intervention by different stakeholders. While the changes have come in the name of streamlining the process by reducing duplicate roles, they have made it is for projects that may impact the environment to sail through the scrutiny process. For instance, the CEAA 2012 imposes strict timelines in which decisions to proceed with an EA are supposed to be made. Doelle (2012) argues that these strict timelines reduce debate on projects and minimize public participation.
Scope
The term ‘streamlining’ has also been used to reduce the scope of the CEAA 1995 (Gibson, 2012). According to Doelle (2012), the most significant changes in CEAA 2012 have affected the scope more than any other domain. The CEAA 2012 diverges from the Red Chris Supreme Court Decision, which insisted on the broadness of the scope in EA. The court decision showed that the scope of a project should be at least the full project. Under CEAA 2012, however, projects can be scoped much narrowly (Doelle, 2012). The CEAA 2012 defines designated projects with the inclusion of any physical activity incidental. Gibson (2012) and Doelle (2012) agree that the interpretation of incidental may limit the scope of a project to only the specific project components on the designated project list. In other words, project ...