Développement Législatif Récent au Québec Concernant les Milieux Humides (Recent Development on Wetland Conservation Law in Quebec)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les milieux humides sont des ecosystemes fragiles, complexes et productifs offrant plusieurs benefices. Malheureusement, la pression du developpement economique a reduit enormement la proportion de milieux humides dans le monde. Les gouvernements doivent donc assurer la protection de ces milieux. Au Canada, les milieux humides sont partiellement proteges par la Politique federale sur les terres humides et la Convention de Ramsar. La majorite du fardeau tombe, cependant, entre les mains des gouvernements provinciaux. Ce rapport national explore le cadre legislatif quebecois concernant les milieux humides et ses developpements recents. Il resume la protection des milieux humides offerte par le regime de certificat d’autorisation de l’article 22, alinea 2, de la Loi sur la qualite de l’environnement. Il examine aussi l’application du principe de gain net (no net loss) lors de l’emission de certificat par l’entremise de la Directive 06-01. Toutefois, cette directive ministerielle fut frappee de nullite par la Cour superieure. Ceci precipita l’adoption de la Loi 71 qui incorpore le contenu de la Directive 06-01 en droit quebecois. Ce rapport fait la synthese de cette loi et de ses lacunes, soit l’imprecision du concept de milieu humide et l’etendu du pouvoir discretionnaire du Ministre. Il conclue en soulignant l’opportunite qui se presente aux juristes de participer aux debats qu’engendrera l’adoption d’une future loi sur les milieux humides telle que prevue par la Loi 71.Wetlands are fragile, diverse and productive ecosystems. The pressure of economic development has greatly reduced the surface area of wetlands. Governments have thus often stepped in to protect these ecosystems. In Canada, wetlands are partially protected by the federal government’s Wetland Policy and by the Ramsar Convention. Nonetheless, most wetland protection and management is in the hands of the provincial governments. This Country Report explores Quebec’s legal framework for wetland protection and recent legislative development. It first summarizes the wetland protection under section 22(2) of the Environment Quality Act which requires citizens to obtain a certificate of authorization from the Minister of Sustainable Development, Environment and Parks before completely or partially altering or destroying a wetland. It then looks at the constraint created by the ministerial Directive 06-01, implementing the “no net loss” principle, on the Minister’s discretionary power to grant a certificate. The Directive was however struck down by the Superior Court forcing the Government to quickly adopt Bill 71 which gives the authority to the Minister to the implement the principle. This Report summarizes the content of Bill 71 and some of its shortcomings. It concludes by underling the opportunity for environmental law scholars to participate in the debate that will precede the adoption of future wetland protection legislation mandated by Bill 71.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".