Alberta tables “Peterson Law” protecting professionals’ free expression
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith introduced the “Peterson Law” to curb professional regulators who punish members for legal, off-duty speech, citing Jordan Peterson’s case
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith introduced the “Peterson Law” to curb professional regulators who punish members for legal, off-duty speech, citing Jordan Peterson’s case before the College of Psychologists of Ontario as an example of political overreach.
“Last year, our government reviewed more than 100 regulated professions to assess whether regulatory bodies were upholding the rights and freedoms of their members,” Smith said. “At the time, we indicated that if legislative action was needed, we would take it. And today we are living up to that promise with what we’re calling our Peterson Law.”
Bill 13, the Regulated Professions Neutrality Act, would prohibit regulators from sanctioning professionals for personal views expressed outside the workplace. Exceptions are narrowly defined, such as for threats of violence, criminal convictions, misuse of professional position, or sexual misconduct. Smith said regulators must “stay in the workplace” and focus on competence and ethics rather than policing beliefs.
Last year, Justice Minister Mickey Amery highlighted several national examples of regulatory overreach. These included a Saskatchewan nurse fined $26,000 for criticizing her grandfather’s care, a doctor cautioned for objecting to a church’s COVID-era communion policy, and Ontario’s mandatory Statement of Principles. He also pointed to the Jordan Peterson case, which the government referenced again on Thursday.
The premier said the bill responds to growing concerns that regulators are enforcing ideological conformity. She referenced disciplinary actions taken against professionals across the country, including Peterson, who she said “was sanctioned and ordered to undertake a so-called reeducation program in order to maintain his credentials for statements he had made outside of a clinical psychology setting.”
During the press conference, Smith noted that regulated professionals seemingly face no consequences for opposing her government, but said expressing support for the Alberta UCP was a different story.
She said one doctor wrote to the president of the Alberta Medical Association—his union—to express support for Bill 9. Shortly thereafter, he lost hospital privileges and was forced to take a $5,000 course.
“Almost all of us who have stood have endured this kind of treatment,” Smith said, quoting the doctor.
“I believe CPSA [College of Physicians & Surgeons of Alberta] is persecuting me for raising concerns with their ideology. I’m now undergoing mentoring that is costing me almost $10,000 in loss of revenue,” a different doctor texted Smith.
Smith argued that such cases have created an environment where professionals feel unable to challenge prevailing narratives on major issues. She pointed to various examples during the COVID-19 lockdowns, citing claims about mask efficacy and incorrect statements that vaccines would prohibit transmission, both of which she said were later contradicted.
She said various doctors tried to sound the alarm on these kinds of issues.
“I don’t fear having a robust discussion where you’ve got a difference of medical opinion. What I do fear is that there’s a narrative that sets in that prevents us from being able to look at science as it evolves, because that’s what science is: a thesis, a counter thesis, and then ultimately, through investigation, we get further and further knowledge. And I believe that by not having that kind of environment, it actually makes us poorer as a society,” Smith said.
She cited a more recent example, saying the United States, New Zealand, Sweden, Finland, and the United Kingdom have all taken similar stances as Alberta in banning puberty blockers for children.
Amery said the bill also restricts regulators from imposing mandatory cultural, DEI, or ideological training unless it is directly tied to professional competence or ethics.
“If there is a push or a drive from a regulator to impose upon its professionals some sort of political, cultural or social ideology, and it has nothing that relates to the professional competence or ethics of that individual professional, then it will not be permitted to happen in this province,” he said.
Smith explained that DEI is “a very highlight charged ideological doctrine that teaches a particular perspective about colonialism and white settlement. And you ask to ask the question, What are we trying to get to with that? Are we trying to get to a point where we have fairness in hiring and a diversity of people who are hired into positions, or are we trying to socially engineer some kind of narrative?”
She explained her government was interested in removing any barriers to merit-based hiring.
Amery added that neutrality principles would require regulators to treat professionals fairly regardless of personal beliefs and that the legislation strengthens avenues for appeal if regulators overstep.
Before the bill, professionals had to undergo an extremely lengthy and costly process to appeal decisions made by the regulators. Amery explained the first step was an initial hearing process, followed by an appeal mechanism developed by the regulators. Afterwards, someone would have to seek court intervention through judicial review and finally an appeal for that.
“We’re subjecting professionals who express their opinions on things that are important, social issues and putting them through this process time and again in countless different situations. That’s simply inappropriate,” Amery said. “We want our regulators to come back to what they were intended to do: regulate professional ethics, regulate competence, make sure, for example, that our doctors are good doctors, make sure that our lawyers are good lawyers and leaving it at that.”