Rest assured, Alberta’s Bill 13, the so-called Regulated Professions Neutrality Act, has little to do with protecting freedom of expression.
Despite Premier Danielle Smith’s claim during a news conference announcing the legislation yesterday that “professionals should never fear losing their licence or career because of a social media post, an interview, or a personal opinion expressed on their own time,” Bill 13 might more accurately be entitled the Making Quackery Great Again Act or, in the case of non-medical professions, the Protecting Egregiously Unprofessional Behaviour Act.
Its inspiration is most certainly deeply rooted in Premier Danielle Smith’s well-known preoccupation with COVID-19 conspiracy theories and quack COVID cures, and the impact her inability to moderate those obsessions on the air had on her career as a right-wing talk radio bloviator toward the end of the pandemic.
“Unfortunately over the last few years far too many topics have become unchallengeable and the mob of political correctness thinks nothing of destroying a person’s career and reputation over some perceived slight, real or imagined,” Ms. Smith whinged bitterly in 2021 after stepping away from her microphone at CORUS Radio. “I’ve found that as a result there are many topics I simply choose not to cover anymore.”
She insisted at the time she had jumped and wasn’t pushed after six years on the air. But methinks the lady doth protest too much. Three days later, she told another interviewer: “I haven’t slept through the night in probably for nearly a year because of this question: ‘Did I say anything today that is going to incite the mob?’”
Ms. Smith has been a public figure in Alberta for more than 25 years. Anyone who has followed her career will have trouble believing she couldn’t sleep for worrying about repressing the topics of her cranky bloviations. The woman has no filter and no shame.
So, no, these don’t sound like the words of someone who gave up their job willingly.
Being a right-wing talk radio shock jock may not be a profession or a trade, but it is said here that just the same the Regulated Professions Neutrality Act is Ms. Smith’s revenge.
“Every Albertan must be able to express their opinions and beliefs freely without fear of losing their job or being punished,” Mr. Amery said in the government’s news release about the bill. That’s pretty rich coming from a fellow whose government just passed legislation forbidding 51,000 schoolteachers, members of a regulated profession, from advocating an illegal strike or even talking publicly about a work-to-rule strategy.
“This legislation makes that protection real and holds professional regulatory bodies to a clear standard,” Mr. Amery’s pious canned quote continued. (Except, of course, when it doesn’t.)
No, this is about legitimizing false narratives and open bigotry associated with the MAGA movement in the United States, now spreading virally across the world’s longest undefended border.
The government news release predictably included several supportive quotes, two from nurses who were disciplined by their professional colleges, one for what the B.C. College of Nurses called statements intended “to elicit fear, contempt and outrage against members of the transgender community” and another who was investigated in Saskatchewan after she faced complaints about her opposition to vaccine mandates.
It’s important to note that in the latter case, the College of Registered Nurses of Saskatchewan ruled in the nurse’s favour and dropped the complaints – a fact ignored by the Alberta government’s propaganda.
Given the outrage at the UCP’s use of the Notwithstanding Clause to interfere with the medical treatment of transgender patients, the government’s strategic brain trust must have thought they were being devilishly clever to include a supporting quote saying, “It is very important to me that Alberta’s regulator of professional engineers is not allowed to restrict how I speak about my personal trans identity.”
However, a spokesperson for the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta said today that while Scott (Sheila) Cunningham has been a registrant of the regulatory body since 1998, “we can confirm that they have never been subject to any disciplinary action by APEGA.” Member Engagement and Communications Director Gisela Hippolt-Squair added that “APEGA is in the process of reviewing the Regulated Professions Neutrality Act and looks forward to clarity in regulatory responsibilities related to off-duty expression and professional obligations.”
A quote in the news release from a member of the Law Society of Alberta states that “I am encouraged that moving forward, lawyers will not be compelled to endorse political or ideological positions or engage in ideological education programs as a condition of practice.”
That lawyer likewise has no discipline history whatsoever with the Law Society, which rather leaves the impression Bill 13 is a solution in search of a problem. Nevertheless, the reference to “ideological education programs” is a signal of the UCP’s true intent.
As members in good standing of the MAGA movement, Ms. Smith and her ideological Praetorian guard are death on diversity, equity and inclusion programs and training. Indeed, the news release states, the legislation will “restrict mandatory training unrelated to competence or ethics, such as diversity, equity and inclusion training.”
The moment the elaborate effort to justify Bill 13 as an exercise in the defence of free expression really jumped the proverbial shark, though, was when Ms. Smith proclaimed that the government will henceforth know the legislation as the “Peterson Law,” after former University of Toronto professor and cross-border nuisance Jordan Peterson.
Dr. Peterson’s cranky views have made him a hero to incels on both sides of the Canada-U.S. border. In 2022 he was required by the College of Psychologists of Ontario to complete remedial training on professionalism in public statements after making comments the college termed degrading, demeaning and unprofessional.
Dr. Peterson challenged the college in the courts and got nowhere. Since then, he has decamped for the United States.
On the plus side, Bill 13 may eventually prove to be a boon unions that represent workers who are also members of regulated professions. That would include members of the teaching profession – barring further use of the Notwithstanding Clause, of course.
NOTE: This story has been updated with confirmation from the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta that a member quoted by the Alberta Government in its news release has never been subject to discipline by the organization. DJC
Thank you David for focussing attention on this issue. As a frequent defence counsel in professional conduct matters (nurses, physicians, dentists, lawyers) I have had occasion to complain about what I see as regulatory overreach when the Law Society or a College seeks to sanction off-duty conduct. But Danielle Smith’s reference to Jordan Peterson makes me gag. Jordan Peterson is not an example of a repressed professional. As a reminder, the following is from the Ontario Divisional Court decision (2023 ONSC 4685) that refused Judicial Review of the decision of the College of Psychologists of Ontario:
“Between January and June 2022, the College received numerous reports about Dr. Peterson’s conduct on social media and in his public appearances. The reports again raised concerns about Dr. Peterson’s professionalism, including whether his tweets complied with the College’s Standards of Professional Conduct. The tweets and statements included the following:
(a) A tweet on January 2, 2022, in which Dr. Peterson responded to an individual who expressed concern about overpopulation by stating: “You’re free to leave at any point.”
(b) Various comments Dr. Peterson made on a January 25, 2022, appearance on the podcast, “The Joe Rogan Experience”. Dr. Peterson is identified as a clinical psychologist and spoke about a “vindictive” client whose complaint about him was a “pack of lies.” Speaking about air pollution and child deaths, Dr. Peterson said: “it’s just poor children, and the world has too many people on it anyways.”
(c) A tweet on February 7, 2022, in which Dr. Peterson referred to Gerald Butts as a “prik”.
(d) A tweet on February 19, 2022, in which Dr. Peterson commented that Catherine McKenney, an Ottawa City Councillor who uses they/them pronouns, was an “appalling self-righteous moralizing thing”.
(e) In response to a tweet about actor Elliot Page being “proud” to introduce a trans character on a TV show, Dr. Peterson tweeted on June 22, 2022: “Remember when pride was a sin? And Ellen Page just had her breasts removed by a criminal physician.”
(f) A further complaint about Dr. Peterson’s January 2, 2022 tweet, in which Dr. Peterson responded to an individual who expressed concern about overpopulation by stating: “You’re free to leave at any point.” The further complaint provided a link to a 2018 GQ interview in which Dr. Peterson made a similar comment about suicide.
(g) Dr. Peterson’s tweet posted in May 2022, in which he commented on a Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition cover with a plus-sized model, tweeting: “Sorry. Not Beautiful. And no amount of authoritarian tolerance is going to change that.””
Importantly, the court found (at para 10) that Peterson identified himself on Twitter as a “clinical psychologist” in 2022.
Later in its decision the Divisional Court wrote: “the argument that Dr. Peterson is speaking in a personal capacity and not as a clinical psychologist is undermined by his own conduct and statements. As the ICRC observed, Dr. Peterson describes himself on his Twitter account as a clinical psychologist, and he identified himself that way on the Joe Rogan podcast. Indeed, as he made clear in his submissions to the ICRC, quoted earlier in these reasons, Dr. Peterson sees himself functioning as a clinical psychologist “in the broad public space” where he claims to be helping “millions of people” and as he put it, he is “still practicing in that more diffuse and broader manner.””
Thank you, Simon, and this Premier makes me gag often.
Interesting co-incidents, I was just reading that judgment this morning.
You know, I’ve been thinking about that incident in Montana when a Republican family called the state’s Attorney General, who sent the highway patrol to a hospital to try to force a doctor into giving a patient a quack cure. The hospital did not comply and the trooper left, knowing full well that the hospital was not a highway, nor even beside one.
https://www.businessinsider.com/montana-hospital-ivermectin-state-trooper-incident-2021-10
Long version here, including smuggling the prohibited meds into the hospital in cold drinks. The patient died.
https://www.propublica.org/article/montana-covid-response-pushed-hospital-to-brink
I think this is what Danielle Smith intends to do here in Alberta. If so, we are in bigger trouble than I thought with this troublesome bill.
The Covid pandemic emergency is over, but the pandemic rages on. Things are even more complicated now with nothing being done in hospitals to prevent the spread of airborne infections, including measles and influenza, which is so deadly some Japanese schools have shut down. That’s what makes this new bill particularly dangerous.
Will patients and their families call the shots in hospitals, with doctors left to pick up the pieces and shoulder the blame, and ultimately the lawsuits? This would not be safe or sustainable. The premier herself advocated for quack cures. Where is she going with this?
As a Professional soon to be legislatively freed from all censure, I profess that “Marliana Danielle Smith”, in my opinion, has not been very good at her job.
And… she might consider taking massive doses of ivermectin – I am told by certain other Professionals, that it makes you “smurtor”.
‘Member Ivermectin before Covidmania? “Today, ivermectin is continuing to surprise and excite scientists, offering more and more promise to help improve global public health by treating a diverse range of diseases, with its unexpected potential as an antibacterial, antiviral and anti-cancer agent being particularly extraordinary.” That was from those quacks at the Journal of Antibiotics in 2017. It’s a sad irony, but progs got had during Covid and now the yokel-grifters thinks they is scientifical.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ja201711
Wow. The short section of the linked article that addresses Ivermectin’s anti-viral properties explains something I’d always wondered about, namely why anyone would have thought that an anti-parasitic drug could possibly be effective against a viral disease like covid. It’s just unfortunate, to put it mildly, that SARS-CoV-2 evidently isn’t one of the viruses Ivermectin can successfully target. In any case, thank you for posting that.
Perhaps it is time to defend our border to protect Canadians from malicious foreign agents?
I am now beginning to wonder, is Marlaina an alien agent who should be investigated by CSIS. Her behaviour is consistent in suggesting it. Premier Ditzy certainly is endangering not only Albertans, but other Canadians with her policy. Typhoid Marlaina anyone?
As a past-President & Council chair of Alberta’s largest health professional regulatory College, I find this legislation to be deeply disturbing.
The primary mandate of Colleges under the Health Professions Act in particular, is to protect the public. But how is the public protected if practitioners of a regulated profession are allowed to openly promote and endorse quackery , or spew hateful, bigoted views, without consequence? Is that really what we want to see for our regulated professions?
There is an aphorism that states “never ascribe to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence”. But this government has gone far beyond incompetence. In fact, it is now demonstrating an impressive level of competence in expressing its malice.
It is both a perfect fit, intellectually and ideologically, and also a logical necessity for both the ruling cabal and their well groomed elected spokeswoman/useful idiot. That is,
(i.) “Peterson does not speak for what is “normal.” His jargon of authenticity — that he is just a simple academic fighting for truth amid so much political correctness and censorship — masks his authoritarian ideas.”
(ii.) “Jordan Peterson’s thought is filled with pseudo-science, bad pop psychology, and deep irrationalism. In other words, he’s full of shit.”
It is made to order, as noted above and as detailed by Mr. Climenhaga.
https://jacobin.com/2018/02/jordan-peterson-enlightenment-nietzsche-alt-right
Maybe Dingy Smith can explain “Every Albertan must be able to express their opinions and beliefs freely without fear of losing their job or being punished,” when Mr. Sinclair, a member of the UCP was punted out of caucus for speaking out, not supporting the budget and was going to vote against it? It looks like you will be able to only selectively speak out as long as it is not against Smith herself. No doubt she will blame the NDP or AHS for this.
O.Albertan– Thanks for this; it was also my first reaction. The double standard & hypocrisy might come back to bite her the same way the recall petition did. I would think that she has given Mr Sinclair and Mr Guthrie the weekend to prepare for question period on Monday, and if Mr Nenshi is paying attention, it should lead to a very interesting remainder of this house sitting; with some homework trials of what will or will not pass the social media algorithm police.
I will definitely have to put the kids on notice.
Just a sidebar for anyone paying attention, Marlaina is going to be giving a certain (now independent) MLA* in BC, ideas to use her new law as a defense for comments made on Thursday in session…..which I will not repeat. *Brodie
This govt. is bringing forward so much new and revised legislation there must be a shortage of legislation drafters in the other prairie provinces. Will the stupidity never end?!
DJC says – Indeed, the news release states, the legislation will “restrict mandatory training unrelated to competence or ethics, such as diversity, equity and inclusion training.” Ok, I’ll be the devil’s advocate here and ask – What exactly is wrong with this statement? We’re talking here about mandated training required to be paid for by the professional him/her self. I don’t know about you but I care not one fig about whether the engineer who designed and approved the bridge my family has to cross has been trained in DEI or not.
Mickey: The UCP is not aiming that particular training issue at engineers, of course, but at the Law Society, which did require such a course for lawyers to the bitter objection of some, some of whom, obviously, are members and supporters of the UCP. Arguably DEI training is more relevant to people working in the justice system than, say, designing bridges. It’s also important to note that this is a symbolic attack by the UCP on the ideas of diversity, equity, and inclusion, three concepts to which many of their members are opposed for the worst possible reasons. Of course, the timing of this introduction is also significant. The UCP’s AGM will commence in five days, and Ms. Smith will receive a standing ovation for this and otjer controversial policies. DJC
4 narcissists walk into a room….
Me and my three stooges….
I think this post ignores some real benefits of giving members of regulated professions much more latitude to speak their minds.
1. Prevailing opinion in a scientific or medical field is usually going to be correct about most things, or at least AS correct as the currently available evidence allows. However, it’s never going to be correct about everything, and chances are that it will be egregiously wrong about a few specific things. Sometimes the people on the margins, the people regarded as cranks and dissenters, actually get one right, which is part of how science and medicine advance. If we don’t give doctors, say, a lot of latitude to publicly discuss and debate the possibility that a non-standard or unlikely sounding treatment might work after all, the process of discovery will suffer in the long run.
2. The people who run the regulatory bodies are fallible mortals like the rest of us. What if they start trying to enforce bizarre standards that don’t even sensibly reflect the prevailing consensus in the profession, because of some sort of external pressure (from corporations, activists, or government) or simple incompetence? In such a situation, professionals would need the freedom to be outspoken in order to draw attention to the problems, as a step towards solving them.
3. If a regulatory body has a lot of power to penalise what the Act calls “expressive conduct”, professionals may not be sure where the red lines are, and may refrain from saying and advocating things that the regulatory body would in fact be inclined to tolerate, “just in case”. Partly for this reason, I would bet that a lot of professionals who have never had even the tiniest brush with their regulatory bodies will welcome the Neutrality Act.
4. Requiring professionals to conduct their entire public lives colourlessly and non-controversially probably isn’t actually that great for the reputations of the professions. I’ll be inclined to trust professionals more if I can be more fully certain that the substance and tone of their utterances reflect their own honestly held perspectives as opposed to their regulatory bodies’ expectations.
5. You can love Jordan Peterson or you can hate him, but some of the items on the list helpfully posted by Simon Renouf make me roll my eyes and think the regulatory bodies really must be out of control, at least if the ones here in Alberta behave like their Ontario counterparts. Do we really want to live in a society in which a psychologist can’t call a public figure a “pri[c]k” on social media (item C) without facing professional consequences? That level of etiquette-policing seems absurd.
So I quite like the Neutrality Act. Hopefully it will pass and be followed by similar legislation all over the country, so that in 20 years we Canadians will be able to look back and shudder at the benighted times when we couldn’t be sure if our doctors, lawyers and audiometric technicians (as per Schedule 1(w) of the Act) really believed what they were saying.
I agree with the premise that it’s unfair to fire people for their off-work comments
However, let’s be real here. I used to work *before* the advent of the internet and the old rule we were told by our senior colleagues was, “Never say anything about your boss or your job at a bar or your profession that you wouldn’t say at work because you don’t know who’s listening”
And yes, people were fired, frozen out or lost promotions for exactly those reasons. It just wasn’t splashed all over where everyone could see it. It still isn’t.
Talking about politics or being politically active can have repercussions and it’s childish to think it doesn’t. All the legislation in the world can’t solve that. If you don’t have a stance you’re willing to lose your job over–you have a hobby–not a moral or ethical position making words, meaningless. I’ve been in that position.
Sometimes it had no repercussions, sometimes it did–but at the end of the day the person I’m left with, is me. Everyone wants the freedom but few are willing to pay the price to stand up which is why we’re watching the decline of our actual rights being flushed down the pooper while people like Smith guts healthcare and unions because nobody is willing to pay the price to stop her.
Power concedes nothing without a demand and action.
The medical profession being hijacked by profit agendas and scientists’ works/opinions being suppressed won’t stop until the profit motive is removed from the medical/science fields altogether.
Legislation about free speech won’t change that.
Another move reflecting the bizarre and dangerous notion to reduce Alberta to a 51st state or low credit rated banana republic.
And maybe the next shoe to drop will be to follow the MAGA idiots south of us in proclaiming that “nurses are not to be considered professionals”. This, of course, could be extended here to claim that “teachers” could also fall under that rubric. But then, if no longer professionals, then any person in those non-professions can speak up about anything, truth and morality “notwithstanding” [just like the Peterson of this new bill].
Bruce: I think it’s quite likely this will come this way for both professions, if the UCP remains in power. DJC
An important point that commentators seem to miss is that how professional associations choose to regulate their professions is simply none of the government’s damn business. In fact, their Charter rights are probably being infringed by this legislation.
Also the reference to the Law Society is particularly relevant, given that two UCP ministers have been investigated by it and one of them, a Justice minister of all things, was actually sanctioned.
AL: A justice minister and two former justice ministers in fact. If there’s an argument to be made that Charter rights are bing infringed, I would think the Law Society will be well equipped to challenge it, should they decide to act. DJC
>Byrd remembers thinking: “I don’t go to the governor’s office for my colonoscopy. Certainly you shouldn’t go to the governor’s office to have him lecture you on what immunizations you should or shouldn’t get.”
Even a child understands that colon cancer isn’t contagious. What is the matter with these people.
I’ve always been impressed, by the incredible insight your readers have. I enjoy your reports and their views. I see Smith and the UPC, inciting more hatred, more division and castration in our province. With, in my opinion, the other political parties standing on the sidelines. Where’s the passion, the anger and outrage. Where’s the party with the leader that is going to take this person down?!
While the pandemic reaction and Peterson’s jackassery are part of Smith’s motivation, there is another important legal aspect involving Smith’s JCCF buddies that lawyers are pointing out. Smith and the UCP are outlawing things like requiring lawyers to take a course on Indigenous culture, etc., because they don’t want people to try to address systemic racism, etc. Smith wants to let racists be racist, sexist, etc.
See Irfan Sabir’s twitter thread on Nov 21
https://x.com/MLAIrfanSabir/status/1991987975572619644
and this post by Drew Yewchuck
https://ablawg.ca/2023/02/03/law-society-of-alberta-to-hold-a-special-meeting-to-debate-its-power-to-mandate-indigenous-cultural-competency-training/
It was a mistake associating Jordan Peterson with the legislation. His persona is controversial, divisive and invites negativity. Freedom of speech (with limitations) is guaranteed under our Charter. The real problem is, since 1982, we no longer have an effective charter that enshrines that principal and which has given rise to huge social division in Canada. You’re creating a country united by hate, targeting anyone who has an opposing view or disagrees with you. That’s the negative side of social media. Open and respectful debate is no longer possible in Canada as evidenced by the remarks and divisive nature of this article. You only ever present one side of an argument and not any potential benefits. YOU are the problem with Canada…you’ve lost your empathy and humanity! I’m in BC where our colleges are simply Government inspection Agencies to control all professionals. Alberta you’re next!
For some reason, Smith and the rest of the bag of fake intellectuals seem to have forgotten or tried to rewrite how Peterson came into the public eye.
UofT issued a statement that they would be complying with constitutional human rights policy and that it would be their policy that professors should refer to people’s genders by their personal, preferred choice. There was never a penalty implied nor instituted for non-compliance in any case.
Keep this in mind.
That night, Jordan Peterson spewed all over YouTube that he would be *arrested* if he mis-gendered someone and that Canada was now akin to Italy’s fascist dictatorship…or something.
It was complete bullsh*t but the chuds ate it up. Millions of views.
He rode that to fame, financial wealth, and glory–if you wanna call it that.
He’s been banging on about it ever since then bullying anyone who disagrees. Any actual debates he’s been in that had debate rules…he was promptly trounced and publicly excoriated as a fraud. Didn’t slow him down any, though. He just claims he won when the facts on display in the full-length debate videos are as clear as your monitor screen.
His “clean your room” nonsense is just a rip-offed version of Flylady’s “polish your sink” housekeeping mantra dressed up in joker suit.
Then he crashed on Valium. A college student with a two-year degree in social services knows benzos are highly addictive, dangerous and can be deadly to quit cold turkey. The doctor prescribing it would have been clear about it, as well. That’s in the first semester pharmacology course that everyone has to take in any social sciences or medical field…yet he managed to convince his rabid fanbase that somehow, those basic facts escaped him.
That lie should have ended him–but like a bedbug infestation, there’s just no escaping his overwhelming need for public blood.
As the common saw puts it, “Jordan Peterson is what stupid people think smart people are”
So Smith and crew have had a few setbacks lately. More than a few MLA’s could be recalled and she doesn’t have a huge majority to begin with.
I suppose then it makes sense for her to continue to try implement her agenda as quickly and as much as possible. Next on her to do list seems to be constraining and micromanaging supposedly self regulating professional bodies. Apparently, some got too concerned about things like diversity, equity and inclusion, at least when it was more fashionable to do so. Unfortunately, for Smith and the UCP, this seems to be like waving a red flag infront of a bull and this has upset them greatly.
We should know in Alberta professional bodies will not be allowed now to restrict political expression of their members. No that falls solely to our provincial government and heaven help anyone who tries to usurp them.
When Danielle Smith and the UCP are giving someone like Jordan Peterson attention that he doesn’t deserve, it shows how out of touch they are. This is a very foolish thing to be doing. The sooner the UCP are gone, the better.
This bill seems like a step backwards for professional standards. Protecting unprofessional behavior under the guise of free expression is concerning. We need to hold professionals accountable for their actions, especially when it comes to public health and safety. What are the implications for patient care?