Alberta’s government considers legislative changes to safeguard freedom of expression for regulated professionals.
FULL TRANSCRIPT: Hi, I'm Premier Danielle Smith and this is Alberta's Justice Minister Mickey and we'd like to share with you a new initiative by our government to better protect freedom of speech and expression. Albertans value Free Speech the right to freely express our beliefs without being censored by others most especially by government. A diversity of opinions andbeliefs is one of the hallmarks of a free, healthy, and democratic society. Many of the greatest ideas and advancements in history started out as non-conventional and controversial ideas that became popular in main stream only after brave women and men were able to convince their fellow citizens of their value. Albertans should never be discouraged from holding a wide array of political, ideological, and social views or from expressing their opinions on all kinds of topics. Fair-minded and reasonable disagreements and debate are essential to a healthy public discourse, because they allow for individuals to hear all sides of a debate before making their own judgments as what they believe to be true. The importance of free speech and the marketplace of ideas to healthy democracy is nothing new. And yet there are some troubling trends that we're seeing around the world where several governments and governing bodies believe it is appropriate for them to determine what is true and what is misinformation, and to restrict the speech of those who disagree with them. Sadly, we've seen this trend in Canada over the last several years, as professional colleges and other regulating bodies have been exerting their authority far beyond their legitimate mandate by attempting toregulate the personal beliefs andpolitical opinions of the doctors, lawyers, psychologists, and other professionals they oversee. Law Society of Alberta and the College of Physiciansand Surgeons, as examples, have a very important role to play they protect the public interest by setting standards of competence so Albertans can be confident in the services professionals provide. They also set standards of conduct, integrity, and financial governance, ensuring that professionals uphold the trust placed in them and don't misuse their positions to take advantage ofothers. Those are the appropriate responsibilities of professional regulatory body. However, what professional governing bodies must not involve themselves in is regulating the speech and beliefs of their members outside of their professional duties. What a doctor or lawyer believes or says about politics or religion is not a reflection of their competency to practice medicine or law.
We would like to share with you some troubling examples of what we'veobserved across the country in this regard.
A nurse facing discipline for making comments on Facebook critical of the Care her grandfather received at a long-term care facilityhad to pay over $20,000 in fines and costs now eventually that decision was overturned but she had to fight all the way to the court of appeal to do so.
A doctor who spoke in church and sent a letter to her Archbishop about the way that communion was performed in her church was investigated and issued a caution by her professional regulator after another churchgoer complained that the doctor hadn't mentioned the allegedhealth risks of the communion procedure.
The Law Society of Ontario established a requirement that all lawyers create a so-called statement of principles which compels lawyers to state their commitment to various ideological values and principles dictated by the regulator.
In a case that many of you may be familiar with, Alberta's own Dr Jordan Peterson, a licensed Ontario psychologist and world-renowned author and philosopher, is being forced by his regulatory body into social media re-education for controversial political comments he made on Twitter that had nothing to do with his practice as a psychologist and were based on complaints from people who had never been his patients and who he had never met.
In Alberta, many professionals have been investigated and/or disciplined for expressing their political or policy opinions outside of their professional practice they're often subjected to a long burdensome and expensive disciplinary process based on bad faith complaints from people they have never dealt with professionally, where they're forced to waste months and years oftheir life, and spend large amounts of their personal savings in defending themselves, even if the complaint is ultimately dismissed.
In our UCP government's view, it is not appropriate for this government or any professional regulatory body to compel Albertans tosome official version of “Truth”. George Orwell's fictional 1984 should remain fiction. To ensure the government of Alberta better respects the rights of Albertans, we will introduce amendments to the Alberta Bill of Rights this fall, as previously announced, and to ensure our professional regulators stay within their mandates. Our government is launching a review of Alberta's regulated professions to ensure the freedom of speech, expression, and beliefof their members is adequately protected,and we will bring legislative changes next year to ensure that professional regulatory bodies are limited to regulating their members professional competence and conduct, and not their speech. But before we make any legislative changes in this regard, we will be engaging with Alberta's professional regulatory bodies and professionals to gather their input. We will be gathering information on whetherregulatory oversight is going beyond professional competence and conduct in areas related to freedom of belief, opinion, and expression, mandatory training not related to professional competence, and vexatious and bad faith complaints amongst other issues. Albertans must have confidence in the competence and ethical practice of regulated professionals, and regulated professionals must also have the freedom to hold and express their personal beliefs and opinions, most especially in situations outside their professional role. And that is what this review will be about. Once this consultation is complete, our government will identify any needed legislative changes necessary to achieve these objectives.
University of Calgary law professor Lorian Hardcastle wrote on social media that Smith’s announcement amounts to “the freedom to spread misinformation without professional consequences.”
As simple as that! From a “Law” “professor”.
Another “scientist” from Laval wrote this on X:
To highlight how this tweet by Premier Danielle Smith is misguided or contradicts established facts, let’s break down the issues with her statement:
1.Regulatory bodies exist to uphold standards: Professional regulatory bodies, like those overseeing doctors, lawyers, engineers, or other licensed professionals, exist to maintain public trust by enforcing standards of competence, ethics, and public safety. They don’t “control personal opinions” for the sake of control, but ensure that professionals’ conduct, including their public statements, adheres to standards that protect the public. If a professional shares misinformation or harmful views, the regulator has a duty to intervene, not to censor personal opinions, but to maintain trust and uphold their obligations to society.
2.Misinformation and harm: Danielle Smith’s tweet implies that professionals’ personal opinions are separate from their professional roles, which is a dangerous oversimplification. For example, if a medical professional spreads misinformation (e.g., anti-vaccine propaganda), this can harm public health. Regulatory bodies must step in to prevent this. Protecting public safety is precisely part of their mandate, and doing so may involve correcting or disciplining professionals who publicly mislead people.
3.Training isn’t “unnecessary”: Continuing education and mandatory training are often implemented for a reason—typically to ensure that professionals stay current on best practices, new technologies, and ethical standards. The idea that professionals shouldn’t have to undergo “unnecessary training” is subjective. For instance, if there are new developments in a field (like climate science or new treatments in healthcare), regulatory bodies often require professionals to update their knowledge to ensure competent service.
4.Professional integrity matters: Suggesting that regulators should only focus on “competence, ethics, and public safety” while disregarding how professionals’ opinions and statements affect the public contradicts the purpose of regulation itself. Ethics isn’t just about what happens in a closed office or during a specific transaction—it includes how professionals engage with the public, represent their expertise, and influence public discourse. Allowing professionals to spread disinformation or act unethically outside their direct services undermines the whole premise of regulation.
5.Delusional implications: The delusional aspect of this statement is the notion that professionals can freely express any personal opinion without consequences from their regulatory body. In reality, professionals are often seen as representatives of their field, and if their public opinions contradict established knowledge, particularly on matters of public safety (like health, law, or engineering), regulators are obligated to act.
Her tweet ignores this reality and frames legitimate regulatory oversight as censorship, which is misleading and potentially dangerous. In summary, Premier Danielle Smith’s tweet disregards the fundamental role of regulatory bodies in protecting the public from harm. It portrays essential oversight as unnecessary censorship, which contradicts both the purpose and necessity of professional regulation.
If no one pushes back, they will press forward with their Orwellian agenda full speed. Thank God there are some that care to fight back!
Now she must hold the line because the reaction is going to be epic in its meltdown.
They're setting a fabulous example. Thank you for sharing this, Andreas.