Alberta’s Securities Amendment Act, 2018 makes two substantial changes to the Securities Act. It creates a regulatory framework for financial benchmarks, giving the Alberta Securities Commission power to designate benchmarks and their administrators, compel benchmark contributions and regulate how benchmark data is produced and used.
It also establishes a securities-law whistleblower regime covering confidentiality, anti-reprisal protections and civil claims for workplace retaliation.
The bill reaches beyond internal compliance rules. It gives whistleblowers a direct private right of action with potentially doubled remuneration damages in certain termination, suspension or compensation-reduction cases, while expanding the Commission’s investigative and remedial authority over benchmark administrators and contributors.
The detailed operating requirements will depend heavily on regulations and Commission orders.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds definitions and regulatory powers for benchmarks, benchmark administrators, contributors and users. It authorizes the Alberta Securities Commission to designate benchmarks and administrators, require information, impose conditions and suspend or cancel designations. Separately, it protects employees who voluntarily report suspected breaches of Alberta securities laws and creates a civil claim for reprisals.
Who It Affects
The benchmark provisions affect administrators, data contributors, users of benchmarks, issuers, registrants, investment funds, exchanges and other market participants whose contracts or valuations rely on benchmark data. The whistleblower provisions affect Alberta securities-law entities and their employees, including certain independent contractors and personnel of affiliates.
Why It Matters
Bill 20 treats benchmark integrity as a securities-market issue rather than merely a contractual or data-governance matter. It also shifts whistleblower protection from a general employment concern into a specialized enforcement framework, combining Commission confidentiality with court-enforced remedies and protections that contracts and workplace policies cannot waive.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill first brings benchmarks into the Securities Act. A benchmark includes a publicly available price, estimate, rate, index or value derived from underlying interests and used to calculate payments, value financial instruments, set trading prices or measure investment performance.
The amendments distinguish the administrator that produces the benchmark, contributors that supply information and users that rely on it. Those categories are then incorporated into the Act’s examination, record-keeping and enforcement architecture.
The Alberta Securities Commission may designate a benchmark, place it in a benchmark class, designate its administrator and order a person or company to provide information for the benchmark. Designations and orders may carry conditions, and the Commission may later suspend or cancel them or change their terms after giving the administrator an opportunity to be heard.
The Act also prohibits knowingly or recklessly supplying false or misleading information for benchmark determination and prohibits conduct that improperly influences a benchmark or produces a false or misleading result.The bill gives the Lieutenant Governor in Council broad authority to set the operational rules. Regulations may address methodology, data quality, disclosure, conflicts of interest, governance, internal controls, audits, compliance officers, service providers, record-keeping, compensation, continuity and recovery plans, and what happens if a benchmark changes or stops being provided.
They may also regulate benchmark users, including their contingency plans and contractual arrangements. This makes the statutory amendments an enabling framework whose practical compliance burden will be defined through later regulatory requirements and designation decisions.The whistleblower provisions protect employees who voluntarily provide information about alleged contraventions of Alberta securities laws to Commission staff.
The definition reaches full-time and part-time employees, directors, specified independent contractors and certain employees of affiliates. It covers not only the initial disclosure, but also seeking advice, expressing an intention to report, and cooperating with an investigation or proceeding.
The protections do not cover a person who merely responds to a compulsory order or acts under an existing legal duty, and they require a reasonable belief in the alleged wrongdoing for key protections to apply.The regime protects the reporter’s identity and related records, bars reprisals and obstruction, and invalidates contractual or policy terms that restrict protected reporting or cooperation. A separate civil-liability Part lets a whistleblower sue the employer and individuals who directed or took the reprisal.
The plaintiff must show whistleblower status and the adverse measure, but not prove that reporting caused the measure; defendants can avoid liability by proving an independent reason or the absence of a reasonable belief. Courts can reverse workplace measures and award damages, including up to twice lost remuneration in specified cases.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Commission may designate a benchmark and its administrator, impose conditions, and order a person or company to provide information for use in determining the benchmark.
Regulations may require benchmark administrators and contributors to maintain governance, audit, internal-control, record-keeping, conflict-management and continuity arrangements.
The anti-manipulation rules cover false or misleading submissions used to determine a benchmark and conduct that improperly influences a benchmark’s determination.
A protected whistleblower may include an employee, director, qualifying independent contractor or certain affiliate personnel, and the regime covers reporting, seeking advice, intended reporting and cooperation with an investigation or proceeding.
A successful reprisal claim can produce up to twice the remuneration that would have been received or accrued after termination, suspension, remuneration reduction or denial of a monetized benefit, subject to statutory limits and defences.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Adds benchmark categories to the Securities Act
The bill defines benchmarks, administrators, contributors, users and designated benchmarks, then adds administrators and contributors to provisions governing parties, examinations and record-keeping. It also changes Part 4’s heading to cover regulation, recognition and designation of entities and benchmarks.
The practical effect is to place benchmark infrastructure alongside other regulated securities-market institutions. Administrators and contributors will be within the Commission’s information-gathering and records framework once the relevant provisions apply to them.
Creates the whistleblower protection and civil-claim regimes
New Part 2.1 protects employees who voluntarily report alleged wrongdoing to Commission staff. New Part 17.02 creates a corresponding civil right of action when an employer or another employee takes a reprisal.
The two Parts perform different functions. Part 2.1 governs confidentiality, protected conduct and limits on retaliation, while Part 17.02 supplies the litigation mechanism, evidentiary rules and remedies. Together they make reporting protection both an administrative safeguard and a private employment remedy.
Protects whistleblower identity and information
The Commission must keep a whistleblower’s identity and information that could reasonably reveal it confidential, subject to limited exceptions. Disclosure may occur with consent, when necessary to defend a person in a Commission hearing or Provincial Court trial, or where the Executive Director has reasonable grounds to believe the whistleblower committed a related offence.
The whistleblower remains a compellable witness, but witnesses generally cannot be examined about their knowledge or belief concerning the existence or identity of a whistleblower. Separate confidentiality rules cover information obtained during the investigation and information provided to the whistleblower by Commission staff.
Bars retaliation, obstruction and restrictive agreements
The Act prohibits reprisals against an employee or the employee’s relative because of reporting, advice about reporting, an intention to report, or cooperation with a Commission investigation or proceeding. It also prohibits obstructing protected conduct and makes contractual, agreement-based and policy-based restrictions on that conduct unenforceable.
The bill does not create immunity for the underlying misconduct. A reporting employee can still be liable for securities-law breaches, conduct contrary to the public interest or violations of other Alberta or Canadian enactments. False or materially misleading disclosures remain prohibited, and the employee must generally have held a reasonable belief in the alleged wrongdoing.
Applies protections prospectively by type of conduct
The whistleblower Part can address wrongdoing that occurred before, on or after its effective date, but each protection turns on when the relevant conduct occurred. Confidentiality applies to disclosures and records received on or after the effective date; anti-reprisal protections apply to reprisals taken on or after that date; and the civil-liability Part applies only to reprisals taken or directed after it comes into force.
This separates the age of the alleged securities misconduct from the date of the protected report or workplace response. Organizations therefore cannot assume that an older alleged violation falls outside the regime if the report or retaliation occurs later.
Gives the Commission benchmark designation and anti-manipulation powers
Section 67.4 authorizes written designations and information orders, subject to terms and conditions. The Commission can later suspend or cancel a benchmark or administrator designation, alter conditions or change information requirements after providing the administrator an opportunity to be heard.
The bill also prohibits false or misleading information supplied for benchmark determination and conduct that improperly influences a benchmark or contributes to a false or misleading result. These provisions target both bad inputs and manipulative conduct around the benchmark-setting process.
Authorizes detailed benchmark regulations
The regulation-making power covers nearly the full benchmark lifecycle: methodology, data, disclosure, conflicts, governance, audits, compliance officers, service providers, records, fees, continuity and cessation. It also reaches contractual arrangements between administrators and contributors and contingency planning by benchmark users.
Because many duties are authorized rather than directly imposed in the bill, the scope of day-to-day compliance will depend on regulations, classifications and conditions attached to designations. Firms using benchmarks will need to monitor those instruments as closely as the statute itself.
Makes supporting procedural and governance changes
The bill corrects a drafting error, protects Commission personnel from being compelled in most civil or administrative proceedings to produce records or testify about information obtained in their duties, and expands electronic-filing regulation powers. It also authorizes regulations governing proxy voting, ballot requirements and communications with registered, legal and beneficial security holders.
These amendments are secondary to the benchmark and whistleblower regimes but support the Commission’s administration of the Act. The non-compellability rule contains an exception for Commission proceedings and separately protects the Executive Director and Secretary from compelled production or testimony in civil or administrative proceedings.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Employees and contractors who report securities-law concerns gain confidentiality protections, protection against retaliation and a direct civil claim without having to prove that reporting caused the adverse workplace action.
- Investors and market participants who rely on rates, indices and other financial benchmarks benefit from a framework aimed at improving the integrity, transparency and continuity of benchmark inputs and administration.
- The Alberta Securities Commission gains explicit authority to designate benchmarks and administrators, compel benchmark information and impose tailored conditions or regulatory requirements.
- Whistleblowers who suffer termination, suspension, reduced remuneration or denial of a monetized benefit may recover enhanced damages of up to twice the relevant lost remuneration, subject to the Act’s limits.
- Issuers, investment funds and other users of benchmark-dependent products gain a statutory basis for future continuity, disclosure and contingency requirements when a benchmark changes or ceases to be available.
Who Bears the Cost
- Benchmark administrators may face designation conditions, governance and control requirements, disclosure duties, record-keeping obligations, compliance-officer requirements and continuity planning costs.
- Benchmark contributors may need to improve data controls, enter prescribed contractual arrangements, preserve records and respond to information orders, even when they do not administer the benchmark.
- Benchmark users may need to disclose their use of benchmarks and create contractual and operational plans for a benchmark’s alteration or discontinuation.
- Securities issuers, registrants, investment funds and other regulated entities must review employment agreements, policies and reporting channels because confidentiality and anti-reprisal protections cannot be contracted away.
- Employers and individual managers face litigation exposure for reprisals, including potential recovery of enhanced remuneration damages and responsibility for workplace measures that would otherwise have been permissible.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
Bill 20 tries to make markets safer by encouraging insiders to report misconduct and by imposing discipline on benchmark infrastructure, but it does so by limiting employers’ control over workplace reporting and expanding regulatory discretion over data systems that may be commercially complex. Strong confidentiality and enhanced damages can expose genuine retaliation, yet they can also make ordinary employment decisions harder to defend and increase disputes over motive, belief and causation. The same tension appears in benchmark regulation: flexible oversight can respond to varied markets, but regulated parties must operate under a framework whose most consequential requirements may arrive later through regulation and Commission action.
The benchmark framework deliberately leaves much of the substantive rulebook to regulation and designation orders. That flexibility allows requirements to be tailored to different benchmarks, but it also means regulated parties cannot determine their full obligations from the Act alone.
Key questions include which benchmarks will be designated, whether foreign or widely used benchmarks will be treated as designated, how user contingency plans will be assessed and how much compliance infrastructure will be proportionate for smaller contributors.
The whistleblower model balances strong reporting incentives against procedural fairness and the risk of opportunistic claims. Confidentiality is broad but not absolute: the reporter can be compelled as a witness, and disclosure may be ordered when necessary to defend an accused party.
In civil litigation, the burden shifts sharply toward the employer after the plaintiff proves whistleblower status and an adverse measure, although the employer retains an independent-reason and reasonable-belief defence. The statute also allows arbitration to continue alongside the civil action, which may create overlapping proceedings, evidence issues and additional cost.
The bill protects reports made through the Commission’s channel, not every internal compliance complaint. Organizations will need to distinguish ordinary internal reporting from conduct that invokes the statutory protections, while avoiding policies that chill either type of reporting.
The exclusions for compulsory disclosures and pre-existing legal duties also require careful analysis where an employee reports information after receiving a regulatory demand or under another reporting obligation.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.