New regulation of derivatives markets in Canada - An Australian perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are important differences in the strong national one-stop regulation of derivatives markets in Australia compared to the new provincial regulation in Canada in the Derivatives Act 2008 (Quebec). Each jurisdiction has lessons for the other. This article builds on the common histories of Canadian and Australian financial services with an Australian analysis of the Quebec Act, Canadian provincial financial services regulation and Canada’s new ‘passport’ system for financial market regulation. The Quebec Act, designed to underpin the focusing of Canadian derivatives trading on the Montreal Exchange, is an important global precedent for modern derivatives regulation. It is in line with the IOSCO aims for financial market regulation, including licensing and clearing. It regulates OTC derivatives, with a carve-out for defined ‘accredited counterparties’, and it sets a different standard for the conduct of business by meeting the accepted standards of the derivatives industry. However, as financial markets continue to merge across national borders in the move towards globalisation, different jurisdictions like Australia and Canada continue to use different wording for the same concepts which does not facilitate the persuasive authority of local case law and regulatory releases.The future of the Quebec Act is uncertain, as it may be superseded if the Canadian federal government proceeds with its plan to establish a federal securities commission which would include regulation of exchange-traded derivatives. One model for the future is that participation by the Canadian provinces in a federal scheme may be on a voluntary basis, at least initially. Another model is a single federal regulator for all provinces other than Quebec, with a passport system between the new federal regulator and Quebec. Most provinces and territories are strong supporters of a federal regulatory body, while Quebec announced in July 2009 that it would challenge the constitutionality of the proposed federal legislation. Although this may impact on Quebec's derivatives market and regulation, the Quebec Act remains an important study in derivatives regulation.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".