“Please, Draw Me a Field of Jurisdiction”: Regulating Securities, Securing Federalism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Notwithstanding that there are good reasons to argue that the power over “general regulation of trade” cannot serve as a basis for the recognition of a federal authority to regulate the securities market, the Supreme Court of Canada will most probably resort to it as a peg on which to hang the central government’s securities hat. The challenge the high court will the n face will be in establishing limits to the reach of such a power. After underlining the fragile empirical basis of many arguments in favour of a unified federal securities regime, this article describes how the Canadian division of powers has been judicially apprehended in recent years, particularly in commercial and economic matters. It the n discusses how the current understanding of such division of powers constitutes a next to insurmountable obstacle to the preservation of an unassailable provincial sphere of intervention over securities if, indeed, the Supreme Court invokes the federal power over “general regulation of trade” as the basis of a valid federal intervention in that field. Finally, this article examines how a true federal spirit might inspire a less Manichean approach to the regulation of securities. Indeed, if the federal structure of the Canadian state and, paradoxically, the divided nature of our common market, are to be taken seriously into account, the challenge lies in allowing both the central government and the provinces a legitimate and guaranteed space in the regulation of securities.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".