Sorry man, I was being a smart butt and you didn't pick up on it. I do apologize for that as it turns out you comprehend the process. Some wires crossed but I believe it was more semantics than lack of understanding. CEAA 2012 is still the overarching act dictating review process - that's what I was getting at.
You are correct in that there are many complexities.
Good info for those that want to know.
Like everything we do - PARTICULARLY wrt environmental assessments - the devil is in the details - something well understood by government.
The main differences between CEAA and the JPR processes, is that under the JPR process the reviewers/decision makers are either current or ex-industry members, and that they are pro-government and commonly friends and acquaintences of cabinet ministers, and that the cabinet minister deceides what process to use and who to appoint.
This is called "stacking the deck".
Admittedly, there is some benefit to having at least 1 panel member with industry background so that there is a realistic assessment of planned logistics and technology proposed by the proponent at the decision-making level.
However, that should not be the sole focus of the qualifications of each panel member. Familarity with environmental assessment process, familarity with the area, familarity with oil spill response and clean-up, and familarity with First Nations Rights and Titles and associated processes should also figure just as prominant as qualifications.
AND the minster should NOT have the ability to self-appoint his buds and acquaintances, but rather have it vetted through a panel designed to review qualifications - like a job interview panel.
The Terms of Reference for the panel should be similarly set at the same time.
to my knowledge - none of this has ever been done for a JPR process.
Instead, in the JPR process - pro-industry people drive the process towards a favourable approval process for the proponents. "Yes", "no" and "maybe if" should be all equally possible responses to any proposed development, after weighing all societal costs/benefits - not just those components that promote a favourable stock investment return.
In the case of Enbridge - how is shipping a non-renewable limited product in it's raw form to a foreign country so that they can get the refining jobs an acceptable "economic generator" for Canada - substantial potential negative environmental impacts aside?